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.

Baptist v. Walker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION


March 26, 2007

ELIJAH BAPTIST, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Elijah Baptist ("Baptist") seems to think that every time he is unhappy for one reason or another, he is entitled to turn to the federal courts to air his grievance --- indeed, according to the printout this Court has received from the staff attorneys responsible for processing prisoner pro se litigation, he has filed more than 15 separate lawsuits before his present effort. Although Baptist is no longer in custody, his current Complaint has apparently been assigned by the Clerk's Office directly to this Court's calendar in reliance on this District Court's LR 40(b)(1)(B). Even though that appears to be wrong, because that provision for direct assignment deals only with successive lawsuits by persons in custody, this Court will not impose on one of its colleagues by requiring reassignment when the present action is so readily dispatched.

What Baptist complains about here is that he wrote to Director Roger Walker of the Illinois Department of Corrections on February 4 of this year but has not received a response to his inquiry. Baptist says that he was paroled back on October 23, 1991 and that he believes he still continues to be entitled to receive funds to provide him with medical care, dental service, clothing and food, as well as money for traveling and other expenses to seek employment. Apparently Baptist's parole officer was unaware whether that entitlement continued in effect, so that Baptist wrote Director Walker to get an answer to his question.

It is plain that whatever the answer to Baptist's inquiry about state law may be, Baptist does not state a claim cognizable in this District Court -- after all, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides relief for violations of federal constitutional rights, and the present Complaint does not fit that mold. This Court sua sponte dismisses Baptist's Complaint, a dismissal that renders moot (1) his In Forma Pauperis Application and (2) his Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

20070326

© 1992-2007 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.