Williams v. The State of Illinois et al

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 7/30/2012: This case is dismissed without prejudice. Mr. Williams has leave to reinstate it within 30 days, but any motion for reinstatement must be accompanied by a proposed complai nt that states timely claims against non-immune Defendants, claims that arose in this district. Motion for appointment of counsel 3 and application to proceed in forma pauperis 4 are denied. (For further details see minute order.) Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 7/30/2012: Case Terminated Mailed notice(etv, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

CASE NUMBER

12 C 5765

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

7/30/2012

John Williams vs. The State of Illinois, et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

This case is dismissed without prejudice. Mr. Williams has leave to reinstate it within 30 days, but any
motion for reinstatement must be accompanied by a proposed complaint that states timely claims against nonimmune Defendants, claims that arose in this district. Motion for appointment of counsel [3] and application
to proceed in forma pauperis [4] are denied.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff John Williams has tendered a pro se complaint, together with an application for leave to proceed
without prepayment of fees (in forma pauperis application). Before granting that application, the court
reviews the proposed complaint to satisfy itself that it states a valid claim against non-immune Defendants.
The complaint’s allegations describe an incident that occurred on December 5, 2003 at Mr. Williams’s home
in Bloomington, Illinois. Plaintiff has named a number of Defendants allegedly liable for having arrested
him on that date without probable cause. Another incident described in the complaint occurred on November
18, 2003, “on a public street adjacent to the University”–a reference, as the court understands it, to Illinois
State University in Bloomington, Illinois. Defendant Eric Lutz and a John Doe Defendant allegedly detained
Plaintiff on that date and searched his book bag, then transported Plaintiff to a hospital over his objection.
Without identifying which Defendants are specifically responsible for each claim, Plaintiff has asserted ten
claims for relief: a “civil rights violation”; false arrest; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligence,
“outrageous conduct,” “negligent supervision,” “negligent training,” and malicious prosecution. He seeks
hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
For several reasons, the court concludes that the complaint in its current form must be dismissed. First, it
appears that Mr. Williams has already brought a lawsuit arising out of the same incidents identified in his
new complaint. That earlier lawsuit, Williams v. State of Illinois, No. 04 C 7510, was assigned to Judge
Zagel, who dismissed the case on initial review, noting that it had been filed in the wrong venue and
appeared to be barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. If Mr. Williams pursued his
claims in another court at that time, the determination made earlier would bar this new case under the
doctrine of res judicata.
If Mr. Williams took no further action in 2004, Judge Zagel’s dismissal may be deemed a dismissal of this
12C5765 John Williams vs. The State of Illinois, et al

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
case without prejudice. In that event, there may be no res judicata bar, but this court would dismiss it
anyway, as grossly untimely. The statute of limitations for challenging any conduct that took place in 2003 is
long past.
Finally, this new lawsuit must be dismissed for the same reasons identified by Judge Zagel back in 2004: The
Eleventh Amendment bars any action against the State of Illinois for recovery of damages (the relief Plaintiff
Williams seeks here). And if there were some basis on which Mr. Williams could proceed against any of the
individual Defendants, the court notes that any such claim should be brought in the appropriate venue–an
Illinois state court in Bloomington or the federal court for the Central District of Illinois, where all of the
relevant incidents took place.
This case is dismissed without prejudice. Mr. Williams has leave to reinstate it within 30 days, but any
motion for reinstatement must be accompanied by a proposed complaint that states timely claims that arose in
this district against non-immune Defendants.

12C5765 John Williams vs. The State of Illinois, et al

Page 2 of 2