Jackson v. Allsup et al

Filing 84

ORDER. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED 82 . Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 81 and motion requesting assistance 83 are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 4/8/2016. (ceg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MAURICE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KRYSTAL ALLSUP,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-CV-00920-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
On September 6, 2013, Plaintiff Maurice Jackson, currently an inmate at Pontiac
Correctional Center (“Pontiac”), filed this lawsuit alleging that he was denied his job
requests because he is mentally disabled. Following an initial screening of the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed against Defendant
Counselor Krystal Allsup on claims that she violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§ 12101, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Doc. 5). Given Plaintiff’s
mental deficiencies, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson determined that counsel was necessary,
and Attorney Steven J. Hughes of the firm Pitzer Snodgrass PC was recruited to
represent Plaintiff (Docs. 30, 33).
Defendant Allsup filed a motion for summary judgment on April 23, 2015 (Doc.
40). Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on December 2, 2015 (Doc. 61). Defendant filed a reply on December 16, 2015

Page 1 of 3

(Doc. 62). After the motion for summary judgment was fully briefed, Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 68). The Report and
Recommendation was adopted, and Defendant Allsup was dismissed with prejudice on
March 22, 2016 (Doc. 74). Plaintiff timely filed his notice of appeal on March 30, 2016
(Doc. 76).
On April 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his motion
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. 81). On the same day, however, Plaintiff filed
his IFP motion (Doc. 82). Plaintiff also filed a motion requesting assistance, which asked
the Court to direct Pontiac’s Trust Fund Officer to send Plaintiff a copy of his prison trust
fund account for the past six months (Doc. 83). These motions are now before the Court
(Docs. 81, 82, 83).
A federal court may permit a party to proceed on appeal without full
pre-payment of fees provided the party is indigent and the appeal is taken in good faith.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) & (3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3)(A). An appeal is taken in “good faith”
if it seeks review of any issue that is not clearly frivolous, meaning that a reasonable
person could suppose it to have at least some legal merit. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025,
1026 (7th Cir. 2000).
In this instance, the Court certifies that Jackson’s appeal is not taken in good faith.
The Court is unable to determine the basis for Jackson’s appeal, because when directed
to identify his issues on appeal, he states that “[he] really don’t know, [he] sware (sic)
[he] don’t” (See Doc. 82, p.1). See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(C); 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court is
unable to grant Plaintiff IFP status if he is unable to demonstrate which issues he would
Page 2 of 3

be appealing. Id. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is moot because he filed this
motion simultaneously to filing his IFP motion. Further, Plaintiff’s inability to express to
the Court the issues he wishes to appeal makes his trust fund statement inconsequential
to his motion to proceed IFP, making his motion requesting assistance also moot.
Accordingly, because the Court finds that his appeal is not taken in good faith,
Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP on appeal (Doc. 82) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for
an extension of time (Doc. 81) and motion requesting assistance (Doc. 83) are DENIED
as moot. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to notify the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals of this Order.
Plaintiff is instructed that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
24(a)(5), he has thirty days after he is served with this Order in which to file a motion
with the Court of Appeals to proceed IFP on appeal. His motion must be accompanied
by an affidavit and a copy of this Order. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 8, 2016
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel_____
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3