United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
July 1, 2004.
IGOR VLADIMIR ASLAN Plaintiff,
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.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.