his automobile while he was attempting to have a minor repair
made by the defendant Manning. Manning did not have the necessary
equipment and allegedly sent him to a service station which is
not a party defendant and which also lacked the necessary
equipment. He eventually had the work done for $75.00 by
nondefendants. He claims that damage was sustained while
attempting to obtain these repairs and from an alleged fraud and
conspiracy on the part of various defendants.
Each defendant has appeared by counsel and filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, supported by memoranda of authorities.
Jane Byrne, Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Sales,
Weights and Measures is represented by the Acting Corporation
Counsel of the City of Chicago. The defendant State's Attorney
Bernard Carey is represented by an Assistant State's Attorney.
The defendant Attorney General William J. Scott is represented by
an Assistant Attorney General, and the defendant Jim Manning is
represented by two attorneys in a large private law firm.
Therefore seven attorneys, two of whom are public officials, have
been engaged in responding to this pro se complaint which is
completely without legal merit or justification under any Federal
statute or Constitution.
The plaintiff cites certain criminal statutes in his complaint,
under which he has no standing to sue. 18 U.S.C. § 241, 242,
1505 and 1621. He also cites 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1982 without
alleging any racial discrimination. He sues three public
officials for conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and 1986 without
alleging any improper acts in failing to satisfy his complaints.
Nor does he have any cause of action against public officials for
monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the absence of wilful
or wanton conduct. Cf. Wood v. Strickland, ___ U.S. ___, 95 S.Ct.
992, 1000-1001, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975); Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 247, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).
The remaining cause of action against the defendant repairman
Jim Manning does not lie in the Federal court under any stretch
of the imagination, particularly if the public officials do not
remain in the case.
Construing the pro se complaint most favorably to the
plaintiff, he cannot prevail on any of the facts alleged in his
complaint under any of the statutes or authorities to which he
has averted in his various documents filed in this court. The
court will not repeat the citations which are relied upon by the
defendants, since they are well-known and require dismissal of
This pro se complaint illustrates the unrealistic requirement
that summons be issued and served in pro se matters without the
prior intervention of any private attorney, law clerk or judge.
F.R.Civ.P. 4(a). Perhaps the plaintiff should not have been
permitted to file in forma pauperis, but it cannot be assumed
that his affidavit was false. The defendants have the facility to
investigate this if they see fit, but the more practical
solution, as we have stated on other occasions, is to amend the
Rule or its inflexible interpretation.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the motions
of the defendants to dismiss the complaint are granted, and it is
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.