You're viewing Docket Item 12 from the case Gardner v. County of Cook et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case: 1:13-cv-04315 Document #: 12 Filed: 07/11/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:84

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

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL GARDNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF COOK, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 13 C 4315

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Although the very nature of the self-prepared Complaint by

Michael Gardner (“Gardner”) raised concerns from the beginning as
to whether he would be able to acknowledge and accept the
fundamental and long-established principles of law that compelled
the rejection of his federal lawsuit, this Court’s swiftly issued
(and very brief) June 13, 2013 memorandum order (“Order I”)
sought to explain those legal roadblocks to him. Because that
was done in the context of denying in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
status, so that Gardner could go forward only on payment of the
$400 filing fee, Order I concluded by giving Gardner some four
weeks--until July 9--to pay the filing fee if he chose to do so.

1

On July 9 this Court’s courtroom deputy brought into this

Court’s chambers two documents--each labeled an “Emergency
Motion”--that someone (presumably Gardner) had left in the
receptacle outside of the courtroom deputy’s office--a receptacle

1

On that score Order I at 2 n.2 cautioned Gardner to think
seriously before taking such a step, in light of the grounds that
this Court had identified for the denial of IFP status.

Case: 1:13-cv-04315 Document #: 12 Filed: 07/11/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:85

for the convenience of litigants who wish to deliver such
documents as the Judge’s courtesy copy of court filings as
required by this District Court’s LR 5.2(f), or perhaps notices
of motions to be presented at a later date, or perhaps other
papers intended for this Court’s chambers. In any event the so-
called “Emergency Motions” generated this Court’s issuance of
another memorandum order (“Order II”) that dismissed both
Gardner’s Complaint and this action because of the uncured
deficiencies that Order I had identified.

2

To this Court’s surprise, the July 11 delivery of documents
to this Court’s chambers from the Clerk’s Office included copies
of two different Gardner submissions--this time real filings
(Dkt. Nos. 7 and 8)--that bore a July 8 “Judge’s Copy” stamp but
had not been received in chambers until after Order II had
already been issued. Those documents, respectively captioned

3

2

This Court most naturally assumed that the delivery

comprised the LR-required courtesy copies that disclosed (among
other things) that Gardner would indeed not be paying the filing
fee. But as later events and the case docket have shown, Gardner
never filed the two “Emergency Motions” at all! In material part
the tone of all of Gardner’s submissions appears to reflect that
he perceives himself as a free spirit, unconstrained by
conventions to which the rest of us adhere as a matter of course.
But Gardner must recognize that although nonlawyers who choose to
avail themselves of the resources of a federal court are not of
course held to the same standards as lawyers who practice here,
the nonlawyers are expected to familiarize themselves with the
operative ground rules sufficiently to avoid glitches such as the
one described in this note.

3

It’s difficult to understand why this Court received one
set of Gardner’s submissions at one time (assuming that the first

2

Case: 1:13-cv-04315 Document #: 12 Filed: 07/11/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:86

“Motion To Vacate Judgment with Permission To Enter Amended
Complaint, Objections, and Motion To Strike” and “Amended
Complaint Suit for Title 42 U.S.C. §1983, Title 42 U.S.C. §1985
and Title 42 U.S.C. §1986, Title 18 USC 1621,” have regrettably
added nothing to indicate that Gardner has absorbed what was
sought to be conveyed to him by Order I.

Thus the “Motion To Vacate” simply copies segments of Order

I and asks such questions as whether Gardner had mistakenly
invoked 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985 and 1986 rather than other
authorities that would have authorized his action--an obvious
lack of understanding that it was not his failure to have
selected a proper rubric for his Complaint, but rather the total
impermissibility of his lawsuit, that had led to its rejection.
In like fashion, Gardner charges that his targeted state court
judge and Assistant State’s Attorney have committed crimes in
carrying out what Gardner himself has described as their conduct
carried out in their official capacities.

There is no need to elaborate further. Suffice it to say

that the most recent delivery of Gardner’s filings has added
nothing substantive to the mix or to the ultimate outcome.

set was really intended to be filed, that is) and the second set
two days later. If all four documents had been in hand at the
same time, a single memorandum order could have dispatched all of
them while arriving at the same destination. As it is, however,
the separate delivery of the two sets to this Court’s chambers
has necessitated the issuance of this third memorandum order.

3

Case: 1:13-cv-04315 Document #: 12 Filed: 07/11/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:87

Accordingly this Court denies the Motion To Vacate and rejects
the proposed Amended Complaint.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 11, 2013

4