Johnson v. City Of Chicago et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM Order: In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Order, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 16 is denied. See Order for further details. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 5/15/2017. Mailed notice(ep, )

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

DAVID E. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17 C 1961

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pro se plaintiff David Johnson ("Johnson") has filed a hand-printed Motion for
Reconsideration of this Court's brief April 21 memorandum order that dismissed Johnson's
attempted action claiming deprivation of his constitutional rights -- a memorandum order that
was based on (1) this Court's March 29 opinion that had identified the obvious statute of
limitations problems with Johnson's claim, followed by (2) defendants' statement of the intention
to assert such a limitations defense. This Court had of course scrutinized Johnson's pro se
Complaint carefully before its issuance of the March 29 opinion, and it has done so once again
before issuing this memorandum order.
In Johnson's narrative account contained in his Complaint ¶ IV "Statement of Claim," the
last events that he recounts as attributable to defendants were his rearrest on February 19, 2015
followed by his release "on the third day," so that he was not in custody by reason of that rearrest
after February 22, 2015. And that being so, the delivery of his lawsuit papers to the Clerk's

Office on March 13, 2017 came about three weeks after the expiration of the two-year statute of
limitations. 1 Accordingly Johnson's current Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: May 15, 2017

_________________________
1
It is worth noting that Johnson's signature affixed to his Complaint was dated by him
February 2, 2017, so that he plainly had those papers ready for transmittal within the limitations
period. Hence he has no one but himself to blame for his failure to file a timely Complaint and
action.

-2-