Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

ASLAN v. INS REPRESENTATIVE

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division


July 1, 2004.

IGOR VLADIMIR ASLAN Plaintiff,
v.
INS REPRESENTATIVE, CHICAGO; SHERIFF, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS; RUDOLF NADER MAYER & OTHERS, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MORAN, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Igor Aslan filed a complaint against his former landlord, his landlord's business partner, the Cook County Sheriff, and directors and officers of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Along with his complaint, plaintiff also filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel. Most of plaintiff's allegations involved events that occurred in 1994. In our Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 21, 2004, we denied plaintiff's petition and motion and dismissed his complaint. As explained in that decision, we did not have jurisdiction over some of plaintiff's claims and other allegations did not constitute claims upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff has now filed a motion for reconsideration. It is difficult to determine why this motion has been fashioned as a motion for reconsideration because it has little to do with the claims brought by plaintiff in his original complaint.

As we understand plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, he is now alleging violation of his constitutional rights due to his detention by the INS. He indicates that he has been detained in excess of six months while awaiting deportation and that there is no liklihood of his deportation in the foreseeable future. From letters that plaintiff submitted with his motion, it appears that he was detained by the INS and ordered deported, and that his deportation was not reasonably forseeable. However, he is not incarcerated. Despite plaintiff's allegation that defendants are "improperly continuing to detain" him, the documents that he has filed with the court indicate that he has been released and is currently living on Montrose Avenue in Chicago, IL. Even if we were to treat plaintiff's pro se motion for reconsideration as an amended complaint, it does not state a claim given that plaintiff is not in custody.

  CONCLUSION

  Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.

20040701

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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