Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAMS v. PUCINSKI

January 13, 2004.

JAMES E. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v., AURELIA PUCINSKI, THE COUNTY OF COOK, Defendants


The opinion of the court was delivered by: RONALD GUZMAN, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORPER

Plaintiff James E, Williams, formerly an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, brought this pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants denied him Ms First Amendment right of access to the courts. Williams has filed a motion for summary judgment, and defendants Aurelia Pucinski, formerly the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, and the County of Cook have filed a response. Williams filed two replies, an additional exhibit, and an affidavit supplementing his motion for summary judgment, For the following reasons, the court denies Williams's motion for summary judgment. In addition, the court sua sponte grants summary judgment to defendants and dismisses this action with prejudice in its entirety.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

  Williams has filed a motion for court-appointed attorney. He states that he will be on Mandatory Supervised Release, effective September 23, 2003, and will be transferred to Tennessee supervising authorities so that he may reside with his wife. He states that he will not be able to travel to and from Chicago until his three-year MSR is completed and that he will need Page 2 an attorney to represent him on all issues including trial. The court has since received a change of address from Williams giving a Chicago address.

  It is an abuse of discretion for a court to consider a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment before ruling on a motion for appointment of counsel. Brown-Bey v. United States, 720 F.2d 467, 471 (7th Cir. 1983); Pierce v. United Parcel Service, No. 01 C 5690, 2002 WL 992624 * 3 (N.D. Ill. 2002) citing Brown-Bey. After reviewing Williams's pleadings to date, the court concludes that he is able to represent himself al this stage of the proceedings. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887 (7th Cir. 1981). Moreover, Williams brought the motion for summary judgment, not defendants. His motion for court appointed attorney is accordingly denied.

  LEGAL STANDARD

  Summary judgment is proper when the record shows no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A genuine issue for trial exists only when the "evidence is such mat a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party," Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A court ruling on a summary judgment motion must view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences from the evidence, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cincinnati ins. Co. v. Flanders Else, Motor Serv. Inc., 40 F.3d 146, 150 (7th Cir. 1994). However, the mere existence of an alleged factual dispute is not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Metro. Life Ins, Co. v. Johnson, 297 F.3d 558, 562 (7th Cir. 2002). If there are no material facts in dispute, the court may sua sponte grant summary judgment to the nonmoving party if the outcome is clear and the opposing party has had an opportunity to respond. See Sawyer v. United Page 3 States, 831 F.2d 755, 759 (7th Cir. 1987); Coach Leatherware Co. v. Ann Taylor Inc., 933 F.2d 162, 167 (2nd Cir. 1991); McCabe v. Crawford & Co., 272 F. Supp.2d 736, 741 (N.D. Ill

  Moreover, a party may not attempt to survive a motion for summary judgment through the submission of an affidavit that contradicts testimony in his deposition. Amadio v. Ford Motor Co., 238 F.3d 919, 926 (7th Cir. 2001).

 
COUNT ONE. WILLIAMS V. PUCINSKI, 98 L 014617 BACKGROUND FACTS
  On September 8, 1998, Williams filed an action in Will County, 98 MR 0853, against the County of Cook, Aurelia Pucinski, and Mike McIntyre, along with an application to sue as. a poor person (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 and l(a)). Williams's application to sue as a poor person was granted (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and 2(a)),

  On November 19, 1998, the case was transferred to Cook County (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 and 3(a)), and on December 18, 1998, it was filed as 98 L 014617 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 4),

  On January 22, 1999, defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5). Or April 27, 1999, defendants' motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5(a)).

  On May 12, 1999, Williams filed a notice of appeal and a written request for Pucinski to prepare the record on appeal, consisting of the common-law record (Plaintiff's Exhibit 7). On May 26, 1999, the Illinois Appellate Court granted Williams leave to appeal as a poor person (Plaintiff's Exhibit 8). However, Circuit Court employees refused to assist him and attempted to charge him a $75 lee for the common-law record. Pucinski never filed the record on appeal, and she never responded to the letters Williams wrote her about this matter (Plaintiff's Exhibit 8). Page 4 On August 16, 2000, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal (Appeal No. 1-99-1642) for want of prosecution (Plaintiff's Exhibit 8).

  DISCUSSION

  Williams states that he was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Williams's exhibits consist of his hand-written application to sue as a poor person (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1(a)) and copies of the statute pertaining to filing by a "poor person," 735 ILCS 5/5-105 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2), and 735 TLCS 5/5-105-5 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2(a)). Williams has not produced any documentation from ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.