The Morrish National Republic: Federal Government Moorish Divine and National Movement of the World et al v. City of Chicago et al
Filing
162
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 8/25/2011: This matter is before the Court on an Objection to Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Court 157 , filed by Plaintiffs on July 25, 2011. The Court construes the objection as a motion to reconsider the Courts ruling of July 19, 2011, which granted Defendants motion to dismiss in its entirety. Also before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend additional defendants to complaint 153 . For the reasons set forth be low, Plaintiffs objection/motion for reconsideration 157 is denied, and Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend 153 is denied as moot. The remaining pending motions [94, 98, 99, 118, 119, 135, 138, 142, and 159] also are denied as moot given the Cou rts previous rulings, including the ruling on Defendants motion to dismiss. This case is closed in its entirety. Plaintiff Sheik Love ELs federal claims are dismissed with prejudice and a Rule 58 final judgment will be entered on those claims for Defendants and against Plaintiff Sheik Love EL. Notices Mailed by Judge's Staff (tbk, )
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
Robert M. Dow, Jr.
CASE NUMBER
10 C 1047
CASE
TITLE
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
DATE
8/25/2011
The Moorish National Republic, et al. vs. City of Chicago, et al.
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
This matter is before the Court on an “Objection to Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Court” [157], filed
by Plaintiffs on July 25, 2011. The Court construes the objection as a motion to reconsider the Court’s ruling
of July 19, 2011, which granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. Also before the Court is Plaintiffs’
“motion for leave to amend additional defendants to complaint” [153]. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’
objection/motion for reconsideration [157] is denied, and Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend [153] is denied
as moot. The remaining pending motions [94, 98, 99, 118, 119, 135, 138, 142, and 159] also are denied as moot
given the Court’s previous rulings, including the ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. This case is closed
in its entirety.
O[ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
STATEMENT
On July 19, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss [43] in its entirety as to the claims asserted
by Plaintiff Sheik L. Love EL. The Court dismissed his federal claims for failure to state a claim and dismissed
his state law claims without prejudice (as the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction). The Court
did not decide the merits of any claims asserted by Plaintiff Sheikess Diana EL, but gave her thirty days to file
a motion for leave to amend the complaint if she believed that she could cure the defects identified by the Court.
The Court advised Sheikess Diana EL that in addition to signing her pleadings (or submitting them through
licensed counsel), Plaintiff Sheikess Diana EL needed to demonstrate that an amendment would not be futile in
view of the Court’s analysis of Plaintiff Sheik L. Love EL’s claims and the existence of probable cause with
respect to those claims. Plaintiff Sheikess Diana EL has not filed a motion for leave to amend and the time for
doing so has passed. In its July 19 opinion, the Court also denied as moot Plaintiffs’ motions for summary
judgment [37 and 51] and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment [53] for reasons previously, and
repeatedly, stated.
A motion to reconsider is proper only when “the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a
decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning
but of apprehension.” Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990).
A motion to reconsider also may be appropriate if there has been “a controlling or significant change in the law
or facts since the submission of the issue to the Court.” Id. By contrast, because judicial opinions “are not
intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure” (Quaker Alloy
Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988)), “motions to reconsider are not
appropriate vehicles to advance arguments already rejected by the Court or new legal theories not argued before
the ruling.” Zurich Capital Mkts., Inc. v. Coglianese, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 1045 (N.D. Ill. 2005). In view of
10C1047 The Moorish National Republic, et al. vs. City of Chicago, et al.
Page 1 of 3
STATEMENT
these exacting standards, it is not surprising that our court of appeals has opined that issues appropriate for
reconsideration “rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.” Bank of Waunakee, 906 F.2d
at 1191.
Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider does not set forth any facts or argument which bear on the Court’s ruling on
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Rather, Plaintiffs merely state that they are “tempted to delve into the substance
of DE [152]” but would prefer to rest on the materials previously submitted to the Court and “demand[] that this
Court reevaluate its position which would likely be reversed on appeal for a number of reasons as this Court (nor
is any other court for that matter) is above the law or the rules.” [157 at ¶ 12.]
Here, continuing to accord Plaintiffs wide latitude in the presentation of their arguments, there simply is no
argument that the Court “patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues
presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Bank of
Waunakee, 906 F.2d at 1191. To the contrary, the Court understood and fully addressed the arguments raised
by the parties in the briefing on the motion to dismiss, and nothing in Plaintiffs’ “objection,” or the numerous
other motions Plaintiff Sheik EL has filed, raises issues that have not been addressed fully and fairly in the
Court’s July 19 memorandum opinion and order, and throughout this case by both this Court and Magistrate
Judge Keys.
The other docket entries to which Plaintiffs repeatedly refer do not save their complaint from dismissal. Rather,
the issues presented by Defendants in their motion to dismiss were threshold issues that the Court needed to
resolve prior to considering most of the issues raised by Plaintiffs in their various motions. To the extent that
any of Plaintiffs’ assertions bore on the motion to dismiss–for instance, Plaintiffs’ repeated assertion that defense
counsel should be sanctioned for testifying on behalf of their clients or Plaintiffs’ argument that their status as
Moorish Nationals exempts them from compliance with Illinois state law or the Chicago Municipal Code–the
Court and Magistrate Keys have considered, and rejected, those arguments, either in this Court’s July 19 opinion
or in various other orders addressing Plaintiffs’ contentions [88, 97, 124, 141, 147] . Any remaining issues that
have not been addressed have been rendered moot in light of the existence of probable cause for Plaintiff Sheik
L. Love EL’s detentions and Plaintiffs’ repeated failure to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff Sheikess Diana EL declined to file a motion for leave to amend within the thirty days given by the Court.
As set forth in the Court’s July 19 opinion, an individual’s right to plead his or her own case has never been
extended to permit an individual non-attorney to act on behalf of a corporation or another person. Sheik Love
EL—who is not a licensed attorney—continues to attempt to appear for the other named Plaintiffs and he simply
cannot do so. Sheikess Diana EL repeatedly has been informed that she may not be represented by Sheik Love
EL. Despite these admonitions, including the Court’s final grant of thirty days to file a motion for leave to
amend, Sheikess Diana EL has not signed any pleadings of her own nor has she secured proper counsel to submit
any pleadings on her behalf. Thus, her claims are not now – and never have been – properly before this Court.
Additionally, Sheikess Diana EL has made no attempt to demonstrate that an amended pleading would not be
futile in view of the Court’s analysis of Plaintiff Sheik Love EL’s claims and the existence of probable cause with
respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend is futile. For the reasons stated in the July 19 opinion, adding the
additional parties does not save Plaintiffs’ claims from dismissal. As to Plaintiff Sheik Love EL, the putative
defendant officers still had probable cause to effectuate his arrest. And as to Sheikess Diana EL, the Court offers
no opinion on the merits of her claims as she has declined to properly present them for consideration despite
repeated, and final, warnings from this Court and Judge Keys.
10C1047 The Moorish National Republic, et al. vs. City of Chicago, et al.
Page 2 of 3
STATEMENT
In summary, Plaintiff Sheik Love EL’s federal claims are dismissed with prejudice and a Rule 58 final judgment
will be entered on those claims for Defendants and against Plaintiff Sheik Love EL. Plaintiff Sheik Love EL’s
state law claims are dismissed without prejudice; Plaintiff Sheik Love EL may seek to refile those claims in state
court. See 735 ILCS 5/13-217; Davis v. Cook County, 534 F.3d 650, 654 (7th Cir. 2008). Finally, given that Sheikess
Diana EL declined to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint to properly assert any claims that she may
wish to pursue, either pro se or through licensed counsel, the Court offers no further views on the merits of such
claims. As her claims were never properly asserted in this Court, there will be neither a disposition or a judgment
as to any putative claims by Sheikess Diana EL. With today’s rulings, all pending motions are disposed of and
this case is closed in its entirety.
10C1047 The Moorish National Republic, et al. vs. City of Chicago, et al.
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?