Filed in the Northern District back on April 28th, seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. It's (more or less) a carbon copy of the suit filed against the ISP and CCLRB in state court. The State has not filed an answer to the complaint due to the the State assigning attorneys who are either not available or have a full caseload. The State filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to file an answer, they have until 6/25. Complaint is attached below along with the unopposed motion (which was granted).
"Mr. Roland is currently on vacation and will not be back in the office until May 27, 2014." (Assigned the case WHILE on vacation)
"The undersigned was recently assigned to the present case, and has not yet had a chance to confer with his clients to discuss the merits and defenses. Nor has the undersigned had an opportunity to review any relevant documents necessary to adequately respond to the Complaint." (Because the AAG Bhave's caseload is full, same attorney representing the two ISP agents and Lieutenant in the individual capacity 1983 action in Rhein v. Pryor)
I love this, mostly because it's total BS.
"This motion is not brought for dilatory purposes, but rather is made so that counsel for Defendants can adequately represent Defendants in accordance with their professional obligations. Nor will allowing Defendants an extension unduly delay the resolution of the issues or prejudice Plaintiffs."
Defendants.Unopposed.Motion.for.Extension.to.File.Answer.DE16.0.pdf 146.68KB 290 downloads
This involves a denial as well. Buffalo Grove resident. Whether Cooper or Howard drafted the complaint, it makes no difference, I would LOVE to see the State's answer to the complaint because the Plaintiffs' have the ISP/CCLRB dead to rights. The FCCA (the "Act") creates a liberty interest, therefore subject to heightened scrutiny, arguably strict. Also, well,
"In deciding what procedures the United States Constitution requires before the
State may deprive someone of a liberty interest, a court must weigh three factors: 'First, the
private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous
deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of
additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including
the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute
procedural requirement would entail.' Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)."
Complaint.DE1.0.pdf 59.16KB 270 downloads
Docket (RECAP...I will update as soon as the ISP files its answer/pleading):
Edited by skinnyb82, 02 June 2014 - 11:15 AM.