United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
MICHAEL A. SANDERS, Plaintiff,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES, Defendant.
RICHARD MILLS, District Judge.
This is an action wherein Pro Se Plaintiff Michael A. Sanders ("the Plaintiff" or "Sanders") alleges Defendant Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services ("the Defendant" or DHFS) violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), contending DHFS committed violations pursuant to the ADA's anti-discrimination provisions at 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(2) & (b)(5)(A), and retaliated against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) & (b). Pending before the Court are a number of motions.
Pending is the Plaintiff's Motion to Refer this matter to the Illinois Supreme Court, pursuant to Circuit Rule 52, for a determination as to whether or not Sanders was subjected to unfair labor practices when he was disciplined and then discharged on November 23, 2010.
Seventh Circuit Court Rule 52 provides:
(a) When the rules of the highest court of a state provide for certification to that court by a federal court of questions arising under the laws of that state which will control the outcome of a case pending in the federal court, this court, sua sponte or on motion of a party, may certify such a question to the state court in accordance with the rules of that court, and may stay the case in this court to await the state court's decision of the question certified. The certification will be made after the briefs are filed in this court. A motion for certification shall be included in the moving party's brief.
(b) If the state court decides the certified issue, then within 21 days after the issuance of its opinion the parties must file in this court statements of their positions about what action this court should take to complete the resolution of the appeal.
Because Circuit Rule 52 authorizes action on the part of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and not the United States District Court, the Plaintiff's Motion will be DENIED.
Pending also is the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of his Motion for Appointment of Counsel. In an Order on May 10, 2013, the Court denied the motion, finding that appointment of counsel was not warranted at that time.
Upon reviewing the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, the Court finds no basis to depart from its earlier decision. Accordingly, the Court will DENY the motion.
The Defendant filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion incorporates some of the arguments contained in a previous motion ...