The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Zagel, District Judge
The complaint against the Robbins law firm, Laura Sinars and Sarah Price, is dismissed with prejudice. All other defendants have previously been dismissed.
The plaintiff has filed a number of suits against a wide range of persons whom she has encountered in her efforts to gain a better education for her son. She has, so far as I can tell, sued everyone who has disagreed with her including hearing officers and judges. She has sued lawyers who represent those she has sued and lawyers who were appointed to represent her.
Her pleadings are verbose and unclear. She seeks to offer evidence not presented to the hearing officer. The diligence she displays in her written submissions is not carried over to her participation in hearings. She rarely, if ever, appears to present motions, and recently, appeared in my court but did not wait the half hour or so it would have taken to reach her motion. She did not appear at the due process hearing.
Her repeated filings have caused the school district to expend funds for legal representation which funds might have gone to educational purposes. I have ordered her to respond to the school district's motions for sanctions.
As to the defendants filing this motion, it is clear that no wrongdoing was alleged to have been done by the law firm. The individual defendants are sued solely because of their work as advocates for their clients, and none of the work cited by plaintiff is unlawful.
The plaintiff is, in any event, barred from filing a suit on behalf of her child. She needs a lawyer to do this. She cannot represent her son in this case. Navin v. Park Ridge School District, 270 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2001). Indeed, her own representation of her son demonstrates the reason for this rule. She did not appear at the administrative hearing. Her papers in support of her son's case are not persuasive. But, even if it had been, the law requires that a lawyer represent the son.
In any event, she has made her administrative review claim before Judge Coar (02 C 6082), and Judge Gottschall (02 C 6642) and lost both cases because she sought to represent her son (Judge Coar) and because she failed to prosecute the case (Judge Gottschall). She could have appealed the rulings but did not do so and those judgments are final. The results in those cases preclude her from suing here. This case arises out of the same transaction as both prior cases did. The plaintiff herself says so. This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to appeal from the prior rulings and raise disputes that could have been raised in the prior case. Appeals can only be decided by the Court of Appeals and the time to do that has expired.
Finally, it appears that plaintiff has also failed to file this current request for administrative review within the 120-day time limit.
The plaintiff offers no argument against any of these grounds for dismissal, and I grant ...