The opinion of the court was delivered by: McMILLEN, District Judge.
DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint against the
above-named defendant, which has filed a motion to dismiss by the
United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. The
plaintiff alleges that she has been deprived of various "civil
rights" by the defendant, and she apparently seeks damages and a
restitution of her educational grant for college. The motion to
dismiss will be granted.
In the first place, the Federal government is not subject to
suit for damages without its consent, and the only type of relief
which could be granted to the plaintiff under any construction of
her pleadings would involve monetary relief. This type of relief
is unavailable here. See, for example, United States v. Sherwood,
312 U.S. 584, 586-8, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941).
Furthermore, no individual representative of the government is
named as a party defendant and none is accused of abuse of
discretion or violation of any constitutional right. Therefore
this court has no jurisdiction over any identifiable defendant.
Blackmar v. Guerre, Regional Manager, Veterans Administration,
342 U.S. 512, 72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534 (1952).
The Government's memorandum also contains the pleadings of an
earlier case between the same parties herein, Case No. 71 C 36,
which the plaintiff filed in this court on January 6, 1971. That
action was dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) by
Magistrate Balog on October 5, 1971, and no appeal was taken. A
second action between the same parties, Case No. 73 C 1838, was
filed on July 18, 1973. Judge Lynch ordered that no summons be
issued and dismissed the complaint "with prejudice for failure to
state a cause of action." The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal by an order entered June 3, 1974, Case No.
Even though the disposition of both of the two foregoing
complaints may be subject to question because of certain
decisions by the Court of Appeals involving the Magistrates' Act
and F.R.Civ.P. 4(a), we take judicial notice of them and their
merits in concluding that the plaintiff has had a fair and full
opportunity to litigate her grievances against the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare. The only discernible issue which
was not raised in her previous complaints is that she "obtained
a government grant and was forced to leave college". This does
not state a cause of action for deprivation of any constitutional
right or any conspiracy by the defendant or its agents,
construing the complaint as favorably as possible toward the
For these reasons we will not appoint an attorney to represent
the plaintiff as requested and will dismiss her complaint.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw ...