Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:03-cv-04440_de10> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-04440_de10 RegisterActionDate "2003-08-07" @default.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-04440_de10 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE ORDER of 8/7/03 by Hon. John W. Darrah: The plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment is denied [8-1]. As discussed more fully in the court's dismissal order, any claim for negligence or legal malpractice against the plaintiff's former defense attorney must be brought in state court. The plaintiff's factually unsupported claim of "conspiracy" with a state actor is insufficient to state a claim even under the Federal Rules' basic notice pleading requirements. See, e.g. Logan v Laterzo, 24 Fd. Appx 579, 581 (7th Cir. 2001). (plaintiff suing his public defender under a conspiracy theory was required to "plead and offer sufficient evidence to support a conspiracy between private and public actors") (citations omitted). A mere conversation between the plaintiff's attorney and a prosecutor, the subject of which is unknown to the plaintiff, does not support an inference of conspiracy. Furthermore, adding the State's Attorney as a defendant would be futile, as prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for pressing a criminal case against a defendant. See, e.g. Buckley v. Fitzismmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993); Hunt v. Jaglowski, 926 F.2d 689,693 (7th Cir. 1991), Accordingly, the case remains closed. Assuming that the plaintiff is ultimately convicted, he must bring a habeas action rather than a civil rights action (and only after exhausting available state remedies) if he believes that his defense attorney was ineffective. Mailed notice (ntf) Modified on 08/08/2003 (Entered: 08/08/2003)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-04440_de10 AdministrativeID "9" @default.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-04440_de10 OntologyLabel order @default.