NOETHTICH v. PROGRESS RAIL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

District Court, S.D. Indiana

NOETHTICH v. PROGRESS RAIL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JAMES E. NOETHTICH, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:20-cv-00600-JPH-DLP ) PROGRESS RAIL, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

I. Granting in forma pauperis status

Mr. Noethtich’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is GRANTED. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a). While in forma pauperis status allows Mr. Noethtich to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, he remains liable for the full fees. Ross v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago,

748 F. App’x 64

, 65 (7th Cir. Jan. 15, 2019) (“Under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a), a district court may allow a litigant to proceed ‘without prepayment of fees,’ . . . but not without ever paying fees.”). No payment is due at this time. II. Directing Service of Process The clerk is directed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) to issue process to Defendant Progress Rail in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint, dkt. 1, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order. The complaint lists “Progress Rail/Caterpillar” in the caption, but only identifies Progress Rail as the defendant place of employment, dkt. 1, so the Clerk shall terminate Caterpillar as a defendant on the docket. SO ORDERED. Date: 3/17/2020

S| arr Patrick lbavlove James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: JAMES E. NOETHTICH, JR. 2717 Horton Drive Anderson, IN 46011 Progress Rail 3500 S. Cowan Rd. Muncie, IN 47302

Reference

Status
Unknown