Suppressed v. Suppressed

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/20/2011:(mb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SHAWNETTA T. GRAHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT
OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 10 C 7191

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Shawnetta Graham (“Graham”) has filed a motion seeking leave
to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) from this Court’s brief
August 22, 2011 memorandum order (“Order”) that dismissed her
attempted Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) in this putative 42
U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”) action.

Although Graham’s

accompanying affidavit demonstrates her inability to pay $455 in
appellate filing fees up front,1 Graham’s problem is that she
cannot meet the other precondition to IFP status on appeal--the
assertion of a claim that is nonfrivolous in the legal sense.
This Court made a number of efforts to assist Graham in
fashioning an arguably viable constitutional claim.

It issued

several brief memorandum orders in that respect, but Graham
remained unable to fashion an appropriate Section 1983 complaint.

1

Graham represents that she is “over her head with debt”
and lacks cash to pay the filing fees. Although she describes a
group of vintage coins (acquired by her as a hobby over the
years) that could perhaps be liquidated to generate enough money
to pay the fee, this Court is satisfied that her representations
as to her overall financial condition suffice for IFP purposes.

Ultimately this Court issued a May 26, 2011 memorandum order that
directed the sole target of the TAC--the Illinois Department of
Juvenile Justice--to file a responsive pleading.
That has been done via a motion to dismiss and a supporting
memorandum or law, which Graham has been unable to counter.

As

the Order stated, Department has demonstrated that (1) it is not
a “person” suable under Section 1983 because it is an arm of the
State of Illinois and (2) it enjoys sovereign immunity for the
same reason.

Accordingly Graham’s motion for IFP treatment is

denied, though she is advised that she may present the issue to
the Court of Appeals for its determination on that score.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

September 20, 2011

2