Martinez v. State of Illinois
| Ivy Martinez |
| State of Illinois and J.B. Pritzker |
| 1:2023cv16919 |
| December 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Robert W Gettleman |
| Lindsay C Jenkins |
| Civil Rights: Accommodations |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 2, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 24 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins:Plaintiff has paid the filing fee so she need not submit another in forma pauperis application as previously explained. Plaintiff may serve the summons at 21 on the Defendant herself or contact United States Marshal Service to have them serve it, which may result in a fee. The matter is set for a tracking status on March 8, 2024 at 8:30 am (to track the case only, no appearance is required).Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 22 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming Governor Pritzker instead of the State of Illinois as the Defendant. Before Plaintiff can proceed with this case, she must either pay the filing fee or be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). She has filed two IFP applications [ #4 , #10 ], and the second adds detail left out of the first. (The Court notes that this is the proper approach; an application for leave to proceed IFP must fully and truthfully describe the plaintiff's financial situation.) However, Plaintiff's applications indicate only that she is seeking attorney representation, not that she wishes to proceed IFP. If Plaintiff believes she is unable to pay the $405 filing fee, she should reapply for leave to proceed IFP and check the applicable box. Otherwise, she should pay the filing fee. The existing IFP applications are stricken. By February 16, 2024, Plaintiff should either pay the filing fee or file an IFP application; if she does not, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to pay the filing fee. Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 20 SECOND AMENDED complaint by Ivy Martinez against J.B. Pritzker and terminating State of Illinois. (Exhibits) (rc, ) |
| Filing 19 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Plaintiff Ivy Martinez filed a First Amended Complaint #18 that expands on her initial complaint's allegations. She alleges that the State of Illinois is discriminating against her daughter, who has a mental illness, by "not providing the same level of care and services for my daughter and individuals like her with a mental illness" that Illinois "provides to individuals with developmental disabilities." She alleges that she searched for Supportive/Community Integrated Living Arrangement ("CILA") housing for her daughter in 2022 and 2023, but while this program is available to individuals with developmental disabilities, it is not available to individuals with mental illness. Based on these allegations, and consistent with finding that this Court has jurisdiction, the Court construes Martinez's First Amended Complaint to bring an equal protection challenge to Illinois's CILA housing program under 42 U.S.C. 1983. A claim of this sort might be cognizable because the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires like persons to be treated alike and, depending on the nature of the classification at issue, requires at least a rational basis for treating groups differently. See Monarch Beverage Co., Inc. v. Cook, 861 F.3d 678, 681-82 (7th Cir. 2017). But there is a problem: states cannot be sued under 1983. Malhotra v. Univ. of Ill. at Urbana-Champaign, 77 F.4th 532, 535-36 (7th Cir. 2023). If her hope is that this Court will order the state government to provide Martinez's daughter with CILA housing, Plaintiff must sue a government official, not the State itself, under the Ex parte Young doctrine. Id. at 536. (Money damages are unavailable in 1983 suits against states or government officials acting in their official capacities.) Therefore, Martinez's First Amended Complaint must be dismissed because it names only the State of Illinois as a Defendant. If Martinez wishes to proceed with this lawsuit, she may amend her complaint to name one or more government officials as the Defendants, not the State. A second amended complaint should contain the allegations Martinez included in her First Amended Complaint, plus allegations about which official or officials she is suing and how they implement or enforce the CILA housing program. Further, if the Court has misunderstood the relief Martinez is seeking or the claims she wishes to bring, she should clarify in her second amended complaint. A second amended complaint must be filed by February 19, 2024, or the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 17 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's second letter #15 docketed on January 2, 2024. The letter explains that Plaintiff filed her letter twice to ensure that the Court received it. As previously ordered, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by February 19, 2024. The Court alerts Plaintiff that she may seek the assistance of the Hibbler Pro Se Help Desk by email to alan@uplcchicago.org, though the Court understands that appointments may not be available until February 2024. Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 18 RECEIVED Amended Complaint and no copies by Ivy Martinez. (Exhibits) (ph, ) |
| Filing 16 MOTION by Plaintiff Ivy Martinez for attorney representation. (ph, ) |
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Ivy Martinez's letter #12 , indicating that she did not receive an explanation of the Court's order dismissing her Complaint without prejudice, expressing uncertainty about whether she can renew her request for counsel, and requesting an extension on the deadline for amending her Complaint. The Court views the letter as a motion for extension of time and for clarification and grants the motion. Any amended complaint must be filed by February 19, 2024. The Court clarifies that a dismissal or a denial without prejudice gives a party an opportunity to refile a complaint or renew a motion if certain conditions are met. Specifically, with respect to recruitment of counsel, Plaintiff may renew the request for appointment of counsel and the Court will consider recruiting counsel for her, but first she must provide enough information about her claims to allow the Court to assess the strength of those claims in her amended complaint. Watts v. Kidman, 47 F.4th 755, 760-61, 766 (7th Cir. 2022); Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). The Court also notes that any amended complaint must include a complete account of the facts related to Plaintiff's claim. She provided some additional detail in her letter, but the Court will not refer back to the letter or any other filing when evaluating an amended complaint, so this may mean repeating information contained in the letter in the amended complaint. Finally, the Court's reasoning for its December 21, 2023 decision was contained in the order attached to docket entry #11 . Mailed notice (cn). |
| Filing 15 LETTER from Ivy Martinez dated 12/22/2023. (ph, ) |
| Filing 13 ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to #Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates)#, any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this #LINK# will provide additional information. Signed by the Executive Committee on 12/28/2023: Mailed notice. (tg, ) |
| Filing 12 LETTER. (ph, ) |
Filing 11
ORDER signed by the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 12/21/2023: Martinez's Complaint Dkt. #1 is dismissed without prejudice. By January 19, 2024, Martinez may file an amended complaint. If she does not file an amended complaint, or if the amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies the Court has identified with the original Complaint, the Court will close this case. Martinez's motion for recruitment of counsel Dkt. #9 is denied without prejudice to refiling. See Order for further details. Mailed notice (cn).
|
| Filing 10 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Ivy Martinez for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ph, ) |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Plaintiff Ivy Martinez for attorney representation. (ph, ) |
| Filing 7 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins for all further proceedings. Honorable Robert W. Gettleman no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 12/20/2023. (ph, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Ivy Martinez for attorney representation. (ph, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Ivy Martinez for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ph, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Ivy Martinez. (ph, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (ph, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Ivy Martinez. (ph, ) |
| 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, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (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.
