Case Activity (315)

1. Order | Filed: September 09, 2026 Bowes-Northern v. Chicago Police Department

   Civil Rights: Other | Illinois Northern

   Order

   OPINION and Order signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 9/9/2026. The Court denies Bowes-Northern's Motion to Vacate 239 . The Court also denies Bowes-Northern's Renewed Request for Counsel 256 and Motion for Remote Hearing 257 . Civil case remains terminated. See Opinion for further details. Mailed notice(lk, )

2. Filed: May 22, 2026 | Entered: May 22, 2026 Washington-Bey v. Cook County Circuit Court et al

   950 Constitutional - State Statute | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to the federal courts while simultaneously preventing indigent litigants from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Before authorizing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must make two determinations: first, the Court must determine that the litigant is unable to pay the $405 filing fee; and, second, the Court must determine that the action is neither frivolous nor malicious, does not fail to state a claim, and does not seek money damages against a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), (e). The first determination is made through a review of the litigant's assets as stated in an affidavit submitted to the Court. The second is made by looking to the plaintiff's allegations. An action is frivolous if it is clear that the legal theory or the facts alleged are baseless or irrational. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324; Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). The Court begins with the first determination. Here, Plaintiff alleges that she has received zero income in the past twelve months and has zero assets. It is not clear how Plaintiff paid for basic living necessities if she truly had no sources of money. Plaintiff must provide accurate financial information for a full year, and if the responses on sources of money remains zero, then she must explain in writing on the application how she obtained living necessities. "To qualify for IFP status, a plaintiff must fully disclose [his] financial condition, and [he] must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury." Effinger v. Monterrey Sec. Consultants, 546 F. Supp. 3d 715, 71718 (N.D. Ill. 2021) ("[C]ourts routinely infer an intent to deceive when the plaintiff offers excuses that are implausible or do not hold up on the record."); see Robie v. Thompson, No. 22-cv-06354, Dkt. 5 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2022) (declining to "accept the implausible claim that [Plaintiff] obtained the basic necessities of life during the portion of the past year when he was not in custody with no visible means of support. [Plaintiff] is placed on notice that the court gives pro se litigants wide latitude but will not overlook incorrect sworn information provided on forms designed to elicit basic financial information from unrepresented individuals."). Second, Plaintiff's complaint does not make out a federal claim, nor does it appear that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, as Plaintiff seems to be taking issue with an underlying state court case that does not involve any federal law. If Plaintiff seeks to pursue this case in forma pauperis, she must 1) file an updated in forma pauperis application in accordance with the information contained herein; and 2) file an amended complaint making out a clear federal claim and establishing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 4 is denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff does not comply with this order by 6/11/2026, this case may be dismissed. Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

3. 313 additional result(s)