Robinson v. Walker
| Demi Robinson |
| Ms. D. Walker |
| 1:2022cv04949 |
| September 13, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Robert Blakey |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 2, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Demi Robinson. (rc, ) |
| Filing 14 ENTERED JUDGMENT Mailed notice(gel, ) |
| Filing 13 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: On 9/15/22, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's initial pro se complaint and denied her application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because her complaint did not state a federal claim. See #5 . Plaintiff has now submitted an amended complaint #12 and a revised IFP application. Her amended complaint similarly fails to state a federal claim. Plaintiff alleges that a Chicago Public Schools teacher negligently released her five-year-old son to a stranger without following CPS protocol requiring her to call people on the student's pick up list. #12 at 3-4. Plaintiff alleges that she located her son about 30 minutes later. Id. at 4. Even if Plaintiff could satisfy 1983's state actor requirement, she alleges only negligence, and negligence even gross negligence does not violate the constitution. See, e.g., Archie v. City of Racine, 847 F.2d 1211, 1220 (7th Cir. 1988) ("The distinction between negligence and gross negligence does not respond to the functions of the Due Process Clause. The Court concluded in Daniels and Davidson that the Clause is designed to control abuses of governmental power, and on that account does not reach negligence but does proscribe intentional deprivations. "Recklessness" is a proxy for intent; "gross negligence" is not. To say that conduct is not reckless is to say that there is no basis for finding abuse of governmental power. An error is still an error, "gross" or not; "due process" does not mean "due care"; since Daniels and Davidson held that errors are not unconstitutional, it follows that "gross negligence" is not a sufficient basis of liability."); Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 992 (7th Cir. 1988) ("negligence is no longer culpable under section 1983. Gross negligence is not enough either."); Medina as next friend for N.M. v. Izquierdo, No. 21-CV-01934, 2022 WL 900020, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2022) ("State actors may be held liable for a subordinate's constitutional violations if they are personally involved in the conduct, including if they know about the unconstitutional conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a blind eye for fear of what they might see. A supervisor's mere negligence or gross negligence will not suffice, however; the supervisor must "act either knowingly or with deliberate, reckless indifference."); Munn v. City of Aurora, No. 17 CV 05296, 2020 WL 1081712, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2020) ("Mere negligence, or even gross negligence, does not give rise to liability under 1983."). The Court accordingly dismisses her complaint #12 , denies her application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #8 , and dismisses this case. Given that her allegations fail to implicate any federal claim, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation #9 . Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (gel, ) |
| Filing 12 RECEIVED Amended Complaint and by Demi Robinson. (rc, ) |
| Filing 10 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Demi Robinson. (rc, ) |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Plaintiff Demi Robinson for attorney representation. (rc, ) |
| Filing 8 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Demi Robinson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (rc, ) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Correction regarding received complaint #1 . (rc, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: On 9/13/22, Plaintiff submitted a pro se complaint for violation of constitutional rights #1 , along with an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #3 . The federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. 1915, is designed to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to the federal courts while simultaneously preventing indigent litigants from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Before authorizing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), the Court must make two determinations: first, the Court must determine that the litigant is unable to pay the $402 filing fee; and, second, the Court must determine that the action is neither frivolous nor malicious, does not fail to state a claim, and does not seek money damages against a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a), (e). The first determination is made through a review of the litigant's assets as stated in an affidavit submitted to the Court; the second is made by looking to the plaintiff's allegations. If the Court finds that the suit lacks sufficient merit or that an inadequate showing of poverty exists, it must deny the IFP application. SmithBey v. Hospital Administrator, 841 F.2d 751, 757 (7th Cir. 1988). Here, the Court denies Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it is incomplete. In particular, Plaintiff failed to list her dates of last employment and last take home pay, and she left questions number 3 completely blank, identifying no discernible means of support. The Court thus cannot meaningfully assess her ability to pay. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this matter without paying the filing fee, she must submit a revised, complete application. As Plaintiff considers how to proceed she should be aware that, to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff must allege that (1) defendant deprived her of a right secured by the Constitution or other federal law, and (2) when defendant did so, she was acting under color of state law. E.g., Wilson v. Warren County, Illinois, 830 F.3d 464, 468 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981); Armato v. Grounds, 766 F.3d 713, 719-20 (7th Cir. 2014)). A public school teacher may be a said to be acting under color of state law for purposes of a 1983 claim if there exists "a real nexus between the alleged misconduct and the defendant's obligations as a teacher, e.g. Chivers v. Cent. Noble Cmty. Sch., 423 F. Supp. 2d 835, 854 (N.D. Ind. 2006), and Plaintiff should allege facts in any amended complaint to support a finding of state action. For now, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and denies her application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. If Plaintiff fails to submit a revised, complete in forma pauperis application and an amended complaint by 10/17/22, the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice (gel, ) |
| 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. (rc, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment. (rc, ) |
| Filing 4 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Demi Robinson. (rc, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Demi Robinson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (rc, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (rc, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and by Demi Robinson. (Exhibits) (rc, ) |
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
| Search for this case: Robinson v. Walker | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Demi Robinson | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Ms. D. Walker | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
