Bester v. Carlson et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM Opinion. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 11/22/2016. Mailed notice (mc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

GUS BESTER JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBBIN STUCKERT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16 C 9629

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This Court’s October 13, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order (the “Opinion”)
explained in detail why the pro se Complaint brought by Gus Bester, Jr. (“Bester”), in which he
charged legal malpractice and negligence on the part of a number of defendants in connection
with the handling of a state criminal case against him, was fatally defective for a number of
reasons -- all stemming from legal immunity on the part of each of the three defendants. As a
result the Opinion concluded with this paragraph:
Accordingly, both the Complaint and this action are dismissed with
prejudice. That, however, does not alter Bester’s continuing responsibility
for the earlier-discussed installment payment of the $350 filing fee, which
remains in force.
It is painfully apparent that although Bester can write (his new filing described hereafter
occupies 20 pages plus 14 pages of exhibits), he is apparently incapable of reading and
understanding a message delivered to him in plain English.
To begin with, the dismissal of this action with prejudice means that he has no right to
tender a new version of the same type of claim except by filing a new lawsuit (which could well

be subject to dismissal on grounds of claim preclusion -- or under the older label of “res
judicata”). Moreover, what he has advanced is plainly subject to dismissal under the screening
called for by 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a), for that screening reveals that his new filing is “frivolous,
malicious, [and] fails to state a claim on which relief maybe granted” (28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
This Court is authorized to order dismissal on that ground alone, and it does so.
Moreover, Bester’s current filing targets not only state court Judge Robbin Stuckert and
Bester’s earlier public defender Rob Carlson, who were two of the three defendants named in his
original Complaint and each of whom is immune from suit for reasons explained in the Opinion,
but has also sought to add DeKalb County State’s Attorney Richard Schmack, a different
Assistant State’s Attorney (Phillip Montgomery), head DeKalb County Public Defender Regina
Harris, DeKalb County itself and -- believe it or not -- the State of Illinois (which is insulated
from suit by the Eleventh Amendment). So his ill-thought-through revision is also fatally
defective, and for more than one reason.
Bester’s conduct here is nothing short of appalling. This Court might well consider
treating it as a new lawsuit (for that’s what it is) that requires the assignment of a different case
number, in which event Bester would be liable for a second $350 filing fee, also payable in
installments in the same manner described in the Opinion as to his original complaint. Although
this Court will not do so, Bester is warned that any further efforts on his part may be met with a

-2-

substantial fine, and the Clerk’s Office is instructed to refer any further filings by Bester to this
Court for appropriate screening (again see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)) before docketing.

Date: November 22, 2016

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

-3-