Darrell Sullivan v. DORS

Summary

The Southern District of Illinois dismissed Darrell Sullivan’s complaint without prejudice for failing to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 and for providing insufficient factual allegations. The court also denied without prejudice his motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for recruitment of counsel, while allowing him to file an amended complaint and renewed IFP motion by March 11, 2026.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a claim and failed to comply with Rules 8 and 10 because it contained virtually no factual allegations, did not identify the nature of the claims or injuries, and did not provide fair notice of the alleged wrongful conduct.
2. The IFP motion was properly denied without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to provide the information necessary to establish that he was unable to pay the filing fee.
3. The motion for recruitment of counsel was properly denied without prejudice because Plaintiff had not established indigency, a prerequisite to the Pruitt analysis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim and complied with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10.
2. Whether Plaintiff supplied sufficient information to establish indigency for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
3. Whether Plaintiff established indigency and satisfied the threshold requirements for recruitment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

Disposition

dismissed