Manuel v. City of Joliet et al
Filing
50
MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/18/2014. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ELIJAH MANUEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF JOLIET, a municipal corporation,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13 C 3022
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Elijah Manuel ("Manuel"), who originally launched this action with a self-prepared
detailed narrative submitted under the heading "Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, Title 42
Section 1983 U.S. Code," is now represented by able counsel designated by this Court to serve
him pro bono publico. After counsel prepared a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on Manuel's
behalf, this Court initially announced an oral ruling that rejected other contentions that the FAC
had advanced, so that Manuel's counsel then focused on his claim that he has a non-time-barred
Fourth Amendment or Due Process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") that charges
defendants with malicious prosecution.
This Court, after considering the litigants' submissions in that respect, granted defendants'
Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. On that
score Manuel's counsel had candidly acknowledged that our Court of Appeals is one of two
Circuits that, contrary to the weight of authority elsewhere, hold malicious prosecution claims to
be nonactionable as Fourth Amendment Section 1983 claims -- in this Circuit, because of the
Illinois state law equivalent that provides an adequate remedy. This Court rejected counsel's
position, citing our Court of Appeals' recent opinion in Julian v. Hanna, 732 F. 3d 842, 845-46
(7th Cir. 2013) that has again reconfirmed the continuing vitality of Newsome v. McCabe,
256 F. 3d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 2001).
Now Manuel's counsel have taken an appeal on his behalf, seeking to try once again to
persuade our Court of Appeals to reverse its course on the subject, and for that purpose they seek
in forma pauperis status on the appeal, a request that cannot be granted if this Court were to
"certify in writing that it is not taken in good faith" (28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)). With Manuel's
counsel having stated forthrightly "that this precedent should be revisited and rejected in the
present case to conform to other federal circuits" (pages 1 and 2 of counsel's Motion for
Permission To Appeal In Forma Pauperis), the special circumstances of this case appear to this
Court to place the answer to that question exclusively with the Court of Appeals itself.
In that respect, subjective good faith on counsel's part is clearly present, so that the
question becomes one of objective good faith. And on that score, with the Court of Appeals
having revisited the issue so recently in Julian with a comprehensive discussion authored by
Judge Posner, this Court would frankly consider it presumptuous to weigh in on the subject that
must be resolved definitively by that court. Accordingly this Court respectfully refers the issue
to the Court of Appeals for its determination on the issue of good faith.
In the meantime this Court has reviewed the submission that accompanies the motion for
IFP treatment and finds that it lacks the statutorily required printout of transactions in Manuel's
trust fund account at Big Muddy River Correctional Center, where he is now in custody. Instead
it contains a four-column table, two of which columns report the "average monthly amount
during the past twelve months" received by Manuel and his spouse and the other two list the
"amount expected next month" by the two of them. If our Court of Appeals grants Manuel IFP
-2-
status (the figures in the table just referred to certainly show his eligibility on that score), this
Court will immediately seek the statutorily required information from Big Muddy and make the
necessary calculations as to the deferred payment of the appellate filing fees. If however our
Court of Appeals were to decide otherwise based on its firmly entrenched position on the issue
sought to be posed by Manuel's counsel, that action and that calculation will not be required.
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: March 18, 2014
-3-
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?