Perry v. Mercy Housing et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/29/2012.Mailed notice(vcf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
TORRIN PERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MERCY HOUSING, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

12 C 6755

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Torrin Perry (“Perry”) has employed the
Clerk’s-Office-supplied form of Complaint for Violation of
Constitutional Rights to sue four defendants:

Mercy Housing,

Lynda Cobb (“Cobb”), Porsoe Wilkens (“Wilkens”) and Cecillya
Odell (“Odell”).

Because Perry has failed in his obligation to

establish the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction,
this memorandum opinion and order dismisses the Complaint and
this action sua sponte.
According to Complaint ¶10,1 Perry’s troubles began on
June 23 of this year when Chicago police, apparently acting on a
mistaken tip, entered his apartment without a warrant and--after
handcuffing him--searched the apartment for firearms and took him
into custody.

1

It took a month before Perry was released from the

Perry’s handprinting or handwriting is often extremely
hard to follow (for example, although Wilkens’ name appears
several times in the caption and text, the correct spelling of
his or her first name is not at all certain. But this Court has
soldiered through his narrative (albeit with a good deal of
difficulty), and it is quite certain that this opinion has his
story right.

Cook County Jail on July 23, and when he then tried to return to
his apartment he was denied entry--and that was followed by a
successful eviction proceeding.2

According to Complaint ¶III

Perry has previously sued the offending Chicago Police in Case
No. 12 C 5646, which was assigned to this Court’s colleague
Honorable Sam Der-Yeghiayan.
But although Perry may well have a viable 42 U.S.C. §1983
(“Section 1983”) claim in that earlier lawsuit, he clearly flunks
that precondition to suit here.

Leave aside the point that Mercy

Housing would not appear to be a suable legal entity (a likely
curable flaw).

What rather controls here is that any deprivation

of a property interest (for example, his rights as a lessee) of
which Perry complains at the hands of his former lessor and its
agents did not take place without due process of law--instead he
alleges that a legal eviction took place.
Accordingly Section 1983 has not been brought into play.
Hence both the Complaint and this action are dismissed--but
without prejudice to the possibility that Perry may have a
nonfederal claim that could be pursued in a state court of

2

That last action has led to this lawsuit: Mercy Housing
is his former landlord, Odell was the desk clerk that originally
denied him entry, Cobb is described in Complaint ¶II.B as “Head
Manager” and Wilkens is described in Complaint ¶II.C as “Property
Manager.”
2

competent jurisdiction.

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

August 29, 2012

3