Opinion
Case No. 14 C 27
02-26-2014
RAEFELL M. BUCHANAN, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS DART, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
It has been almost two months since this Court issued its January 9 memorandum order ("Order") dealing with the pro se Complaint brought by Raefell Buchanan ("Buchanan") to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Because the Order determined not only (1) that Buchanan would clearly qualify for the special type of in forma pauperis ("IFP") status that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 specifies for persons in custody, (2) that Buchanan's substantive allegations state facially viable claims and (3) that Buchanan's request for the appointment of pro bono counsel was in order, the Order granted a designation of counsel to permit Buchanan's case go forward.
But the Order also identified Buchanan's inadequate showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and directed that he supplement his originally submitted printout covering transactions in his trust fund account with another printout covering the time frame between October 1 and the date (sometime before January 2, 2014) when he placed his case documents in the mail himself or tendered them to the County Jail authorities for transmission to this District Court. Buchanan has been totally nonresponsive to that directive, and there is no apparent justification -- and certainly no explanation offered -- for that failure to comply. Litigants who have availed themselves of the resources of the federal courts as Buchanan has done have an obligation to comply with, and not to ignore, court orders -- so unless Buchanan complies with that January 9 Order on or before March 17, 2014 (a period that should be more than ample for that purpose), he is advised that this Court will dismiss his action for want of prosecution.
__________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge