Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Angela Marie Smith v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago
January 17, 2012
ANGELA MARIE SMITH
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO
Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan than Assigned Judge
For the reasons stated below, the instant action is hereby ordered dismissed. Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis  and for appointment of counsel are denied as moot. Civil case terminated.
O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.
This matter is before the court on Angela Marie Smith's (Smith) pro se motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (Section 1915(e)), "[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious . . . [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. . . ." Id. Smith has filed a complaint pro se, and thus the court construes the complaint liberally. McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 325 (7th Cir. 2000)(stating that "pro se complaints are to be liberally construed and not held to the stringent standards expected of pleadings drafted by lawyers").
Smith entitles her pro se complaint "Emergency Petition to Enforce Order." (Compl. 1). Smith attaches to the complaint an order and various filings from a charge that she apparently filed before the Illinois Department of Human Rights. Smith indicates that she is bringing this action pursuant to certain state court rules and rules of professional conduct. (Compl. 1). Smith also makes general references to fraud and "immoral and unethical behavior" that "has brought shame to the legal profession." (Compl. 1). Smith also asserts that "[a]ttorneys have a duty to courts and the courts have the corresponding authority to discipline attorneys who practice before them." (Compl. 1). Smith indicates that she is bringing this action "[i]n support for an investigation." (Compl. 1). Even when liberally construing the allegations in the complaint, Smith has failed to plausibly suggest a federal cause of action. To the extent that Smith seeks to bring a charge against an attorney for a violation of the professional rules of conduct, this court is not the proper forum in which to make such a charge. Therefore, since Smith has not plausibility suggested any valid federal claim for relief, this action is dismissed. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the motion for appointment of counsel are denied as moot.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For