Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
-
Filed: May 17, 2022 | Entered: May 17, 2022 Dohm v. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois et al
440(Civil Rights: Other) | Illinois Northern
Entered Judgment
ENTERED JUDGMENT (yxp, ) (Entered: 05/17/2022)
-
Filed: May 16, 2022 | Entered: May 16, 2022 Dohm v. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois et al
440(Civil Rights: Other) | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Iain D. Johnston: On April 1, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff J. Patrick Dohm to either pay the Court's filing fee or file a motion to proceeding in forma pauperis by April 15, 2022. Dkt. 4. The Court then reminded Plaintiff about the April 15 deadline. Dkt. 6. A month after the deadline, Plaintiff has still failed to do either of those two options. Thus, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (yxp, ) (Entered: 05/16/2022)
-
Filed: April 11, 2022 | Entered: April 11, 2022 Dohm v. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois et al
440(Civil Rights: Other) | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Iain D. Johnston: Plaintiff J. Patrick Dohm brings this action apparently challenging the validity of a forty-year old indictment. He presents legal argument regarding the merits of his claim, but does not explain the basis for challenging an old indictment. Indeed, he appears to have already appealed directly and was adamant that this claim is not a habeas proceeding. Now, Dohm has filed a motion, which he titled a "motion to include previously filed motion in the nature of of [sic] writ of error coram nobis and US v. Weber, 71 F. Supp. 88 (N.D. Ill. 1947) Pursuant to 28 USC 1651(a)." Dkt. 5. Again, he presents legal argumentation of why he believes the original indictment was void. He has not paid the court's filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis, however, which the Court already explained. His deadline to do one of those two things remains April 15, 2022. Until he chooses one of those routes and passes any subsequent screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, his motion attacking the substance his claim is premature. The Court, therefore, denies the motion 5 without prejudice. The Court reminds Plaintiff, however, that all motions must seek specific relief from the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(C). Mailed notice (yxp, ) (Entered: 04/11/2022)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login