Source: https://casetext.com/case/young-v-birkel-3
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:08:14+00:00

Document:
This cause is before the court for consideration of the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [d/e 162] and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [d/e 167].
It is not entirely clear from the plaintiff's motion what he is asking the court to reconsider. On February 10, 2006, the court granted Defendants Ellinger and Funk's motion for summary judgement. The plaintiff had accused the defendants of violating his Eighth Amendment rights when they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The plaintiff wholly failed to provide any evidence to support these claims. The plaintiff was repeatedly seen and examined by medical personnel. In addition, there was medical evidence the plaintiff did not even have the injuries he claimed.
On June 21, 2006, the court dismissed the case against the remaining defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2). The plaintiff, even though he is an experienced litigator, refused to participate in the discovery process. On February 9, 2006, the court attempted to simplify the process by directing the plaintiff to file responses to some specific questions about his claims. The plaintiff refused to comply. His case was then dismissed.
See Young v. Birkel, 03-1362; Young v. Blagojevich, 03-1273; Young v. Burger, 02-1408; Young v. Schomig, 01-1407 Young v. Gilmore, 99-1232; Young v. Dhupelia, 99-1217; Young v. Gilmore, 99-1199; Young v. Dhupelia, 99-1157; Young v. Edgar, 98-1407, Young v. Gilmore, 98-1393 all in the Central District of Illinois; and Young v. Stenven, 98-5690; Young v. Gilmore, 99-274; Young v. Skidmore, 98-228 in the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiff has also filed another motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. [d/e 167] The plaintiff filed his seventh notice of appeal in this case on October 17, 2006. See [d/e 28, 52, 85, 123, 139, 153, 163]. Also on October 17, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an order reminding the plaintiff that he had accumulated three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore could not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The plaintiff was given until October 31, 2006 to pay the $455 appellate filing fee. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion is denied.
2) The plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. [d/e 167]. The States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has already informed the plaintiff that he may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and he must pay the $455 filing fee in full. [d/e 166]. The clerk is directed to submit a copy of this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983