This conclusion is consistent with several letters of opinion*fn2
issued in recent months by the Lake County State's Attorney himself as
well as the Code of Professional Responsibility*fn3 which binds lawyers
for the government no less than lawyers in private practice. United
States v. Velsicol Co., No. 80 CR 299, slip op. at 7 (N.D.Ill., January
13, 1981) (Leighton, J.). Moreover, Illinois law provides that
"[w]henever the . . . State's Attorney is . . . unable to attend . . .
the court where said cause or proceeding is pending may appoint some
competent attorney to prosecute or defend such cause or proceeding and
the attorney so appointed shall have the same power and authority in
relation to such cause or proceeding as the . . . State's Attorney would
have. . . ." Ill. Rev.Stat. ch. 14, § 6 (1979).*fn4
Accordingly, Zaremski's motion for leave to file his appearance as a
special state's attorney on behalf of Krok is granted. It is so ordered.
Lake County's Motion To Dismiss
Defendant Lake County has moved to dismiss the complaint as to itself
on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. The county contends that its liability is premised upon
the doctrine of respondeat superior which clearly runs afoul of Monell
v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658,
98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Plaintiffs concede "that the
original complaint, which names the County of Lake as a defendant, is
inartfully drafted as to the County of Lake, and fails to allege
sufficient facts upon which a claim can be based against it." Plaintiffs'
Response To Motion To Dismiss at 2, paragraph 1. Plaintiffs, however,
request leave to amend their complaint in order to state a valid claim
against the county.
Accordingly, Lake County's motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiffs
are given ten days from the date of this opinion to amend their
complaint. If the complaint, as
amended, still fails to state a valid claim for relief against Lake
County, or if the plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint against
Lake County within ten days, the Court will dismiss Lake County from this
case with prejudice. It is so ordered.
Brown's Motion To Strike Or, In The
Alternative, For A More
 Sheriff Brown has moved to strike the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(f) or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). As Brown has not identified any "redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" in the complaint to which
a motion to strike is legitimately directed, within the meaning of Rule
12(f), that portion of his motion is denied. Lipsky v. Commonwealth
United Corp., 551 F.2d 887, 893 (2d Cir. 1976); 2A Moore's Federal
Practice ¶ 12.21 (2d ed. 1980).
 Brown's motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12
(e) will also be denied since the complaint is not "so vague or ambiguous
that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive
pleading" Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). As the court noted in American Civil
Liberties Union v. City of Chicago, 431 F. Supp. 25, 29 (N.D.Ill. 1976),
"[d]efendants have been given sufficient notice of the claim which they
will be called upon to defend and will have ample opportunity to use
pretrial discovery to define more precisely the disputed facts and
Accordingly, Brown's motion to strike or, in the alternative, for a
more definite statement is denied. It is so ordered.