United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
August 5, 2004.
Versuslaw JONES, Plaintiff,
MARIAM HARRISON, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MORAN, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Lois Jones brought suit against defendant Mariam
Harrison alleging slander, conspiracy, and civil rights
violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.*fn1 On May 13,
2004, the court denied plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma
pauperis and, on May 27, 2004, denied her motion to reconsider
that decision. On August 3, 2004, she filed a motion to vacate
the order of May 13 which, for the following reasons, is denied.
Setting aside any procedural defects in plaintiff's motion, she
fails to present any new arguments as to why the May 13 order
should be vacated. In paragraph 4 of the motion, plaintiff claims
that the denial of her petition was erroneous because she stopped
receiving social security benefits on March 1, 2004. As noted in
the order denying the motion to reconsider, the denial of her
petition was based on the merits of her complaint, not her
financial status. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of this motion, plaintiff
claims that defendant is not protected by absolute immunity
because she is not alleging wrongdoing on the bench, but rather
is alleging wrongful acts by the defendant in her personal
capacity. This contention is belied by the complaint itself. As noted in the two previous
orders, all of the conduct alleged by plaintiff was "pertinent to
pending litigation." See McCutcheon v. Moran, 425 N.E.2d 1130
(1981). Even reading plaintiff's complaint liberally and treating
all of her allegations as true, the defendant is absolutely
immune from all claims.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to vacate is