Mase et Porm (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

i 7 Sitti if Or
Nang Maeeate Judge Milton. Shadur hac Assigned Sudge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 7761 DATE 11/15/2002
CASE Christopher Richee vs. Ernesto Velasco, et al
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.}

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qa) a) Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

GB) oO Auswer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue____.

(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon___setfor__—_at

(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor___—__at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___——s—ssetfor_ saat.

Mm im) Trial[set for/re-set for]on__——at_—

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto ss at_—

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(ayX1) O FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) M9 — [Otherdocketentry] Enter Memorandum Order. Accordingly the November 22 deadline set by the

Order for the submission of a revised complaint is extended to December 23, 2002.

(1 [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. number of notices
Notices mailed by judge's staff. N 0 1] 1 8 2002:
Notified counsel by telephone. “tei
| Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. LYNOD LAL SG “S Ppsecrctind sepunyinitiats
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. yy319
courtroom BEE Rd ST AON CO sac naih noice |
SN deputy's
initials ATo20974
Date/time recetved UT
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy’



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER RICHEE,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 02 C 7761
) ’
ERNESTO VELASCO, et al., ) te .
) Oy,
Defendants. ) fo,

Ste
MEMORANDUM_ORDER

Confronted by an impossibly prolix 85-page handwritten 42
U.S.C. §1983 ("Section 1983”) Complaint’ containing 329
paragraphs, as authored by pro se plaintiff Christopher Richee
("Richee”), this Court issued an October 31, 2002 memorandum
order (“Order”) that gave Richee until November 22 to file a
revised complaint that would meet the directives of Fed. R. Civ.
P. (“Rule”) 8(a) that mandate “a short and plain statement” of
both the complaint's jurisdictional grounds and the pleader's
claim for relief. Instead of doing so, Richee (who is not a
stranger to federal litigation--earlier this year this Court has
accepted the filing of, and has appointed pro bono counsel to
represent Richee in, another of his lawsuits, Richee v. Sheahan,
No. 02 C 4272) has submitted a 4-1/2 page handwritten response
explaining his unfamiliarity with federal practice and procedure,

his limited access to a law. library, the imminent trial of his

1 In addition to the Section 1983 claims, the Complaint
appeared to include state law claims under the auspices of 28
U.S.C. §1367(a).


criminal case and a number of other factors that he says make i
difficult for him to comply with the Order.

As Order at 2 made plain, this Court recognizes and honors
the directive of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972) (per curiam) that calls for a generous reading of pro se
efforts. But Richee cannot fairly thrust the burden of carving
his mountainous effort down to a reasonable size either on this
Court or on some appointed counsel. Instead Richee must do the
best that he can to conform to the general standards that are
applicable to all litigants, and this Court will then be ina
better position to exercise an informed judgment as to appointing

or not appointing pro bono counsel to represent him in this case

(a request set out at page 4 of Richee's current filing).
Accordingly the November 22 deadline set by the Order for
the submission of a revised complaint is extended to December 23,
2002. As before, any such revised complaint will be treated as
having been filed on the date when Richee's original filing was
received (to avoid any added statute of limitations
problems)--but if Richee does not comply with the requirement of
this modified order, this Court will be constrained to consider a

without-prejudice dismissal of both the existing Complaint and

this action. Cla OK co

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: November 15, 2002