Endicott v. Illinois Department Of Corrections et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM Order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 5/25/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SCOTT ENDICOTT, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 17 C 3792 MEMORANDUM ORDER On May 19 prisoner plaintiff Scott Endicott ("Endicott"), who is currently housed at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard"), filed a lengthy hand-printed Complaint (occupying 21 pages of Complaint allegations coupled with another 30 pages of exhibits) that charges he was subjected to constitutional violations when he had earlier been incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center ("Stateville"). Although no copy of Endicott's filing documents was delivered to this Court's chambers, the District Court's staff attorney assigned to the case has provided this Court with such a copy together with a brief informative memorandum. Because Endicott has paid the $400 filing fee up front, there is no need for this Court to engage in the usual preliminaries prescribed by 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915 for prisoner plaintiffs who are unable to do so. Accordingly this memorandum order turns to Endicott's self-prepared Motion for Appointment of Counsel ("Motion"), comprising another nine self-printed pages that include the Motion itself and several hand-printed exhibits that are samples of Endicott's efforts to reach out to a number of lawyers and law firms to seek legal representation (efforts that satisfy our Court of Appeals' precondition for a District Court's consideration of such a motion). Although Endicott has not supplemented that portion of his filing with a showing of his financial inability to retain counsel to represent him in this litigation, it seems clear that he does need a lawyer to handle his lawsuit and that he most likely lacks the financial ability to retain paid counsel (more on the latter subject in the next paragraph). Accordingly this Court grants the Motion and has obtained the name of this member of the District Court trial bar who is designated to act as Endicott's counsel: LeRoy Cross, Esq. Law Offices of LeRoy Cross, Jr. 77 West Washington Street Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: 312-609-1010 E-Mail: LCrossLaw@ aol.com. On the subject of Endicott's financial situation, this Court is transmitting to him, contemporaneously with a copy of this memorandum order, three counterparts of the Clerk'sOffice-supplied form of In Forma Pauperis Application. It orders Endicott to complete that form, supplemented by a printout showing transactions in his trust fund account at Menard for at least the six month period that ended May 16, 2017, and promptly to return one of those counterparts to the Clerk's Office 1 and another to this Court's chambers. 2 1 Office of the Clerk United States District Court 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604. 2 Honorable Milton Shadur United States District Court 219 South Dearborn Street Suite 2388 Chicago, Illinois 60604. -2- This Court sets a status hearing for 9 a.m. July 20, 2017, with the above-designated counsel being expected in the interim (1) to confer with Endicott, (2) to make arrangements for service of process on defendants by the United States Marshals Service and to consider whether (3) to leave Endicott's Complaint in place or, perhaps, (4) to consider whether a lawyer-prepared replacement pleading will better serve Endicott's interests. 3 __________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: May 25, 2017 3 If the latter alternative applies, attorney Cross should take steps to ascertain the identity of the counsel who will be representing defendants and advise him or her that no pleading responsive to Endicott's self-prepared version of the Complaint should be currently prepared and filed. -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?