Mack v. City Of Chicago et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM Order: For the reasons stated in this memorandum order, plaintiff's motion to clarify 32 is denied. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/29/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

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

TERRENCE MACK (N-95539),
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

USCA Case No. 17-2511
(District Court Case No. 17 C 3302)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court's May 5, 2017 memorandum order (Dkt. No. 6) explained why pro se plaintiff
Terrence Mack ("Mack") was "hopelessly out of time" (id. at page 3) in seeking to invoke 42
U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") as to conduct he ascribed to his numerous targeted defendants in
connection with his criminal conviction nearly 30 years ago -- in 1988!! When defendants quite
predictably declined to waive or forfeit their right to assert that limitations defense, this Court
issued a May 26 memorandum order (Dkt. No. 12) dismissing this action as barred by
limitations.
But Mack continues to exhibit total confusion on the subject. In addition to his having
taken an appeal from the dismissal of his case in our Court of Appeals Case No. 17-2511, he has
filed what he terms as a "Motion to Clarify" (Dkt. No. 32 in this District Court), in which he says
that the May 26 dismissal order "was misinterpreted by the Court as a [sic] attack on the plaintiff
state conviction."
Not so -- the order of dismissal expressly rejected Mack's Section 1983 Complaint
because it was so many years beyond the two-year statute of limitations applicable to

Illinois-based claims that seek Section 1983 relief. It is simply untrue that Mack can start the
two-year limitations clock ticking anew from the December 2015 date on which another
individual obtained reparations based on a Chicago ordinance that has established a program to
provide an independent source of relief to some victims of the torture inflicted by the notorious
Jon Burge.
That Chicago City Council ordinance was labeled the "Reparations for Burge Torture
Victims" Ordinance. It created a $5.5 million "Reparations Fund for Burge Torture Victims"
(the "Fund"), with "any individual with a credible claim of torture or physical abuse by Jon
Burge or one of the officers under his command at Area 2 or Area 3 Police Headquarters
between May 1, 1972 and November 30, 1991" having the opportunity to seek financial
reparations not to exceed $100,000 out of the Fund. But simply to recite the nature and origin of
that Fund highlights the irony inherent in Mack's selection of "Motion to Clarify" as the caption
for his Dkt. No. 32 effort -- for the only person whose mindset is in need of clarification is Mack
himself.
It will be recalled once again that the limitations period for an Illinois-based Section 1983
claim is two years. But this Court has not heretofore had occasion to explain the reason for that
rule, which is that Section 1983 claims are viewed conceptually as tort claims, thus bringing into
play the limitations period prescribed by an Illinois statute for claims of that nature. And nothing
in that principled adoption of a state statute to fix the federal limitations period for Section 1983
purposes even hints at delegating a like role to a city's purely administrative program. If Mack's
general constitutional rights were indeed violated by one or more of the defendants whom he

-2-

now seeks to sue, such violation clearly took place some three decades ago rather than in
December 2015, as he now contends. 1
In sum, then, Mack's "Motion to Clarify" must be and is denied. And that means this
Court's dismissal of Mack's current action, as long since time-barred, remains intact.
Conclusion
With this Court's earlier memorandum orders and this memorandum order having dealt
with the substance of the fundamentally misconceived (and clearly time-barred) Section 1983
action now brought by Mack, all that remains is to cleanse the current case docket of what it lists
as still-pending motions: Dkt. Nos. 24, 28, 29 and 32. As to those docket entries:
1.

This Court's August 22 memorandum order (Dkt. No. 38) has already
granted Dkt. No. 24.

2.

Because the Dkt. No. 28 and 29 motions are really duplicative of the
Dkt. No. 24 motion, this Court's August 25, 2017 minute entry (Dkt.
No. 41) has already denied each of them.

3.

Mack's Dkt. No. 32 motion, captioned "Motion to Clarify," plainly
displays Mack's warped notion of the statute of limitations bar that has

_________________________
1
Although Mack has attached a copy of the Chicago ordinance to his "Motion to
Clarify," he obviously has not read or understood it. Its Section 3(a) expressly confirms its
independence from any recovery through a separate action such as a Section 1983 lawsuit:
Provided, however, that if an individual with a credible claim has already received
compensation (such as by supplement of his or her claim(s) arising out of the
torture or physical abuse), such individual shall receive up to $100,000.00 minus
the amount of the prior compensation.

-3-

doomed his Section 1983 claim from the outset, and it too must be and is
denied.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: August 29, 2017

-4-