James v. City of Chicago, Cook County et al
| Bill James |
| City of Chicago, Cook County and Kim Foxx |
| 1:2022cv00333 |
| January 19, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 7, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 CIRCUIT Rule 3(b) Fee Notice. (ph, ) |
| Filing 12 ACKNOWLEDGMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding notice of appeal #9 ; USCA Case No. 22-1357. (ph, ) |
| Filing 11 TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal #9 . Notified counsel (ph, ) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record regarding notice of appeal #9 . (ph, ) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of appeal by Bill James regarding orders #7 , #8 . (ph, ) |
| Filing 8 ENTERED JUDGMENT on 2/28/2022. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: On January 24, 2022, this Court issued an Order that flagged a number of apparent problems with the complaint. Plaintiff alleged that three large trucks from the City blocked his path so he couldn't drive away. This Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by February 13, 2022. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, but it is more of the same. Plaintiff alleges that he was "arrested or seized without probable cause," and that the defendants conspired to violate his civil rights. See Am. Cplt. at 2 (Dckt. No. #6 ). The description of the claim says that "one or more defendants threatened, arrested, incarcerated, attacked, and or unlawfully restrained a terrified Plaintiff James." Id. at 3. But the factual description of the claim is completely insubstantial. Once again, Plaintiff alleges that he was working on his laptop in his car, and then "three large white truck were surrounding vehicle, in a manner than incarcerated vehicle, which was unable to drive away." Id. at 4. An attachment describes how City workers were stapling things to trees (presumably notices of some kind), and that the police later arrived. The ensuing description of the dialogue is largely unintelligible. Id. at 6-15. There is no factual support for the notion that Plaintiff was taken into custody and thus seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. It basically sounds like City trucks pulled up on his street and double parked, which prevented him from driving away. Double parking is not a constitutional violation. The case is frivolous. The complaint is dismissed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 6 RECEIVED Amended Complaint and no copies by Bill James. (Exhibits) (ph, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dckt. No. #3 ) is hereby denied without prejudice. Based on the application, Plaintiff James is indigent, so he satisfies the financial part of the application. But under the statute in question, this Court must prescreen the complaint, and "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that... the action... fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Here, it is not clear that the complaint in question states a claim. Page three of the complaint alleges that "one or more defendants, threatened, arrested, incarcerated, attacked, and or unlawfully restrained a terrified Plaintiff James." Page four of the complaint includes a few specifics, but not much. The complaint alleges that on the evening of January 13, 2022, Plaintiff was working on his computer in the backseat of a parked vehicle. That's when "three large white trucks" surrounded the vehicle, so he was unable to drive away. (As an aside, it is not clear that he was trying to drive away, because he was working on his laptop in the backseat. But maybe he wanted to leave at some point.) So Plaintiff "began recording this new attack." He was "imprisoned in vehicle for more than an hour, until all defendants departed." Attachment #2 includes a few more details. "Three Chicago unknown workers exited three white trucks and stood together talking." One worker said to "put signs on every tree." Attachment #2 includes a few other allegations (which are difficult to understand) about the signs on the trees. At some point, "after awhile, multiple Chicago cops arrives, exited cop cars, and began talking to the three unknown workers and the vehicle driver." And "after more than an hour Plaintiff was finally released and Plaintiff's vehicle was able to leave." By the look of things, it appears that some workers from the City of Chicago, perhaps from the Streets and Sanitation Department, did some work on the street in question, and put some signs on trees (perhaps temporary "no parking" signs). The complaint reads as if the City double parked and thus blocked Plaintiff in his vehicle. If so, that's not a constitutional claim. It's a traffic problem. The Constitution does not forbid congested streets, or dictate where a municipality can park its vehicles. The complaint does not appear to allege that the police seized Plaintiff within the Fourth Amendment by restraining his liberty. He encountered a traffic problem, but that's about it. So the complaint is dismissed. Maybe there is more to the story, and if so, Plaintiff can file an amended complaint. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by February 13, 2022. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (ph, ) |
| Filing 4 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Bill James. (ph, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Bill James for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ph, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (ph, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Bill James. (Exhibits) (ph, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Judge Sheila M. Finnegan. Case assignment: Random assignment. (ph, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
