From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stuckey v. Chicago Transit Authority

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Jul 25, 2005
Case No. 05 C 3346 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 25, 2005)

Opinion

Case No. 05 C 3346.

July 25, 2005


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (the "Motion"). When reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must first determine whether the Plaintiff's allegation of poverty is untrue. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). Here, Plaintiff is currently employed by the Chicago Transit Authority and receives $800.00 per month in salary. She also has $500.00 in savings, owns real estate worth $120,000, and owns a vehicle worth $14,000. Based on the information provided, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's allegation of poverty is untrue. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED.

Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1951(e)(1), which provides that "[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." Section 1915(e)(1) is interpreted to require a "threshold inquiry into the indigent's efforts to secure counsel." Jackson v. County of McLean, 952 F.2d 1070, 1072-73 (7th Cir. 1992). Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she is indigent or that she made any attempts to retain counsel. As a result, Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Stuckey v. Chicago Transit Authority

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Jul 25, 2005
Case No. 05 C 3346 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 25, 2005)
Case details for

Stuckey v. Chicago Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:ANNIE STUCKEY, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Date published: Jul 25, 2005

Citations

Case No. 05 C 3346 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 25, 2005)