IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
September 6, 2011
ROBERTO FLORES-BAHENA, PLAINTIFF,
OFFICER HOVEL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
This Court has had to issue not one but two memorandum opinions and orders addressing pleading deficiencies authored by an Assistant State's Attorney in this 42 U.S.C. §1983 lawsuit. No joy is involved in the issuance of such corrective opinions, nor is it pleasant to suggest that consideration might be given to the imposition of sanctions for counsel's mishandling. Indeed, if such a suggestion alone were to lead (as this Court would hope) to the exercise of more care by the offending lawyer in the preparation of his or her future pleading efforts, this Court's sense is that nothing further is likely to be called for.
In this instance the lawyer involved has filed a replacement pleading and has asked that no sanction be imposed attributable to his earlier efforts. That request is granted on the assumption stated in the last sentence of the preceding paragraph--but at the same time, counsel's attention is called to what continue to be unacceptable responses to Complaint ¶15 (how can defendants know that the particular allegation in that paragraph is untrue?), Complaint ¶16 (just what allegation in that paragraph is purportedly denied?) and Complaint ¶17 (as to which the same question applies). Ah well.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.