Filed: Feb. 14, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2012
Summary: ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge. Plaintiff Christopher Stoller, who is incarcerated in the Dixon Correctional Center in Dixon, Illinois, commenced this action pro se in the Central District of Illinois. That Court transferred the case to this District based on venue. (Doc. 1, 2.) Plaintiff subsequently submitted to this Court a copy of a February 2011 Order issued by the Illinois Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit (Illinois Probate Court) appointing the Illinois Office of
Summary: ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge. Plaintiff Christopher Stoller, who is incarcerated in the Dixon Correctional Center in Dixon, Illinois, commenced this action pro se in the Central District of Illinois. That Court transferred the case to this District based on venue. (Doc. 1, 2.) Plaintiff subsequently submitted to this Court a copy of a February 2011 Order issued by the Illinois Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit (Illinois Probate Court) appointing the Illinois Office of ..
More
ORDER
G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge.
Plaintiff Christopher Stoller, who is incarcerated in the Dixon Correctional Center in Dixon, Illinois, commenced this action pro se in the Central District of Illinois. That Court transferred the case to this District based on venue. (Doc. 1, 2.) Plaintiff subsequently submitted to this Court a copy of a February 2011 Order issued by the Illinois Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit (Illinois Probate Court) appointing the Illinois Office of the State Guardian as plenary guardian over Plaintiff's estate and person, case# 09 P 957.1 (Doc. 10, ex. 1.) The Illinois Probate Court determined that Plaintiff was "totally without understanding or capacity to make and communicate decisions regarding his person" and his estate.2 (Id.) In an Order filed on January 3, 2012, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within 30 days why this action should not be dismissed based on his lack of legal capacity to commence this action due to the guardianship. (Id.) On January 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to comply with the January 3, 2012 Order in any respect despite filing various other matters in this case. (Doc. 32.)
On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff, appearing for the first time through counsel, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis that substantially complied with the requirements for a prisoner to proceed in forma pauperis, which had also been required by the January 3 Order. (Doc. 37.) Plaintiff's counsel also filed a "Motion to Show Cause," which the Court construed as a Response to the January 3, 2012 Order. (Doc. 42.) In addition, Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for entry of default and default judgment and a motion for injunctive relief. (Doc. 40, 44.)
On February 9, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, fourteen days in which to file a memorandum of points and authorities to support the Response to the show cause order. (Doc. 48.) The Court stated that it would hold Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis in abeyance pending the filing of the memorandum and denied the other motions. (Id.)
Plaintiff, rather than his attorney, has now filed a notice of interlocutory appeal and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Doc. 50, 52.) LR Civ. 83.3(c)(2) provides that whenever an attorney has appeared for a party in a case, the party may not thereafter appear or act in his own behalf or take any steps therein, unless a notice of substitution of counsel shall have first been made, and that an attorney who has appeared of record shall sign all papers filed on behalf of the party. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal has not been signed by his attorney and will be ordered stricken.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is ordered stricken. (Doc. 52.)
