Gogos v. AMS-Mechanical System, Inc.

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/22/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHIMOS GOGOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMS-MECHANICAL SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

13 C 3779

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court has repeatedly tried to explain to pro se
plaintiff Anthimos Gogos (“Gogos”) that his grievance against his
ex-employer AMS-Mechanical System, Inc. cannot be pursued in this
federal court under the auspices of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”)--an explanation attempted by this
Court’s “Order I” issued on June 5, 2013 its “Order II” issued on
July 11 and its “Order III” issued on July 25.

Nothing daunted,

on August 2 Gogos submitted an 18-page filing (Dkt. 26) “that I
would like to be included on the record cornering [sic] this case
before transfer to the appeal court.”
In that most recent filing Gogos has again acknowledged
forthrightly that he does not understand what this Court has
sought unsuccessfully to convey to him.

And what this most

recent filing further reflects is that although Gogos may indeed
have been sick at the time of termination of his employment, his
problem remains that he does not qualify as having had a
“disability”--a term of art under the ADA.

Accordingly the final sentence of Order III (“Gogos’
proposed lawsuit under the Act remains dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction”) is still accurate.

Finally,

because the Clerk’s Office current printout of motions assertedly
pending in cases assigned to this Court’s calendar still includes
Gogos’ “Motion To Appeal Your Decision from Last June 5-2013 That
You Terminate My Case” (Dkt. 12), a few words should be said on
that score.
Despite the quoted caption of that document, in large part
it reads like a communication to this Court asking for the
reinstatement of Gogos’ case and the appointment of a lawyer to
represent him.

What has been said earlier in this memorandum

order reconfirms the reasons for denying such reinstatement,
while the second aspect should be directed to the Court of
Appeals in connections with Gogos’ appeal.

Accordingly a “Motion

To Appeal...” is unnecessary, while the other aspects of the
Dkt. 12 submission are denied.

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

August 22, 2013

2