Massey v. Local 743, IBT

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/19/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DEBRA MASSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOCAL 743, IBT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

11 C 6740

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Three weeks ago (on September 28) this Court issued a
memorandum opinion and order (“Opinion”) in which it
(1) explained to pro se plaintiff Debra Massey (“Massey”) why it
had to deny her In Forma Pauperis Application (“Application”) in
conjunction with her proposed Complaint of Employment
Discrimination against Local 743 of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters (“Union”), (2) carefully explained the alternative
possibilities as to the timeliness of her proposed action (a
question not answered by her initial filing) and (3) set
October 14, 2011 as the deadline date for her payment of the
filing fee if the action was indeed timely brought.

Either

heedless of or not understanding (or perhaps a bit of both) the
message that was carefully spelled out in the Opinion, Massey
simply assembled and presented for filing a fresh set of
documents that (like her original filing) used Clerk’s-Officesupplied forms:

another Civil Cover Sheet, another Complaint of

Employment Discrimination, another Appearance Form for Pro Se

Litigants, another Summons form, another Request to Waive Service
of a Summons, another Application and another Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (“Motion”).1
All of those documents will be filed to complete the record.
But what is abundantly clear is that (1) nothing that Massey has
tendered addresses (let alone cures) the problem of untimeliness
spelled out in the Opinion.

That is more than strange, given the

fact that the second Complaint is fleshed out in response to one
part of the Opinion and the Motion is also fleshed out in
response to another part of the Opinion--but not a word is said
on the subject of timeliness raised in the Opinion.

It must be

concluded that Massey’s initial filing was indeed out of time,
and this action is dismissed.2

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

October 19, 2011

1

Massey also tendered another form--a Complaint for
Violation of Constitutional Rights--that is plainly inapplicable
to a lawsuit against Union, which is not of course a “state
actor” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and related statutes.
2

That renders the Motion moot, so it is denied on that

basis.
2