Pugh v. Il, Education Labor Relation Board et al
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable James B. Zagel on 7/24/2013. (ep, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MARY A. PUGH,
Plaintiff,
No. 11 CV 7688
Judge James B. Zagel
v.
ILLINOIS EDUCATION LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed
this suit (“Pugh II”) under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 against Defendants Illinois
Education Labor Relations Board (the “IELRB”), Victor E. Blackwell, Helen Higgins, Thomas
Allen, and Katherine Levine (collectively, the “individual defendants”). The complaint states:
“[f]rom 2008 to 2010 the Il. Education Labor Relation Board has violated my civil rights. I have
never received a fair hearing. Fraud upon the court by the officers of the court. IELRB has
engage [sic] in concealing criminal and fraudulent acts. CPS utilize [sic] unfair labor practices
pertaining to special education grant fraud (IDEA). Unauthorize [sic] practice of law was
allowed by the IELRB.” It further states: “The [IELRB] failed to uphold complaints. Chicago
Teacher Union failed to protect rights which allowed Chicago Board of Education to continue
unfair labor practices.”
On November 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a very similar complaint against Defendants
IELRB, Higgins, Blackwell, and Levin (“Pugh I”). That complaint was dismissed with prejudice
on November 9, 2010. On May 30, 2013, I ordered Plaintiff to submit in writing to the court an
explanation of why Pugh I did not have res judicata effect on the claims in Pugh II. Plaintiff’s
July 8, 2013 statement in response [Dkt. Entry 28] is unsatisfactory. The fact that Plaintiff has
added Thomas Allen as a defendant and filed different claims in Pugh II does not save it from
the res judicata effect of Pugh I. Plaintiff needs to demonstrate that the claims in Pugh II arise
from a different underlying factual transaction or occurrence than the claims in Pugh I—meaning
her claims in Pugh II arise from a different core of operative facts than the claims in Pugh I. See
Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 789 F.2d 589, 593 (7th Cir. 1986).1 I am going to give her
one more chance to submit to this Court in writing a statement to show why her claims are not
barred by res judicata.
Additionally, Plaintiff needs to file an amended complaint that contains enough factual
detail to allow this Court to plausibly infer that her claims against the individual defendants are
viable. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). In other words, Plaintiff needs to tell me
specifically how each individual defendant violated, or conspired to violate, her constitutional
rights. General allegations, such as “Defendant X concealed criminal or fraudulent acts” will not
suffice—I need some details. Plaintiff should read Ashcroft to gain an understanding of the level
of factual detail required to satisfy Rule 8, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
All claims against Defendant IELRB are dismissed with prejudice. The IELRB is an arm
of the State of Illinois; the 11th Amendment bars Plaintiff from bringing a private suit against it
in federal court. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890).
To conclude, Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint against the individual defendants
that complies with Rule 8. In addition, she is to submit a statement that explains why her current
claims are not barred by res judicata. If Plaintiff needs assistance with this, she should contact
1
To the extent that Plaintiff argues res judicata should not apply because she did not receive a full and fair
opportunity to litigate her claims in Pugh I, I reject this argument. Plaintiff essentially abandoned her claims in
Pugh I by failing to file a Rule 60(b) motion or to appeal the Court’s November 11, 2010 order. See Lim v. Central
DuPage Hosp., 972 F.2d 758, 763-64 (7th Cir. 1992).
the pro se assistance program at (312) 435-5691. The amended complaint and res judicata
statement must be filed by August 30.
ENTER:
James B. Zagel
United States District Judge
DATE: July 24, 2013
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?