Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

James B. Zagel Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 576 DATE 2/29/2012

CASE

TITLE

Maurice J. McDonald (B42547) vs. Judge Stanley J. Sacks

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The complaint is dismissed for plaintiff’s attempted fraud upon the Court. Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541,

543 (7th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 858, 859 (7th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff’s motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 3), and any other pending motions are denied as moot. Civil

Case Terminated. 

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Pro se plaintiff Maurice J. McDonald has brought a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus against

various state judicial and prosecutorial officials involved in his state criminal prosecution. Plaintiff was

found guilty of stabbing Lester Coats, a drug dealer from Chicago’s Southside, and his girlfriend, Brenda

Robertson, in February 1983. United States ex rel. McDonald v. Hulick, No. 06 C 5762, 2007 WL 967934, at

*1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2007) (citing Illinois v. McDonald, 660 N.E.2d 832 (Ill. 1995)). He also stole their

money, jewelry and food stamps. Id. Petitioner was sentenced to death and 60 years imprisonment for the

murder and robbery convictions, respectively. Id. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment as

part of the clemency for all Illinois death row inmates by then-Governor George Ryan in 2003. Id. 

Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied in this Court, McDonald v. Hulick, No. 06 C

5762 (N.D. Ill.) (Conlon, J.), and the Seventh Circuit denied his request for a certificate of appealability. 

McDonald v. Hulick, No. 07-1946 (7th Cir. Aug. 9, 2007). He also recently had an unauthorized successive

petition dismissed. McDonald v. Atchison, No. 11 C 8866 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2011) (Conlon, J.).

Plaintiff has been equally unsuccessful in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 litigation accruing numerous strikes,

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in three federal district courts: McDonald v. Danahy, No. 92 C 1306 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19,

1992) (Duff, J.) (Dkt. No. 6); McDonald v. Neville, No. 92 C 7492 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 1992) (Moran, J.) (Dkt.

No. 7); McDonald v. Hornyak, No. 93 C 4779 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 1993) (Andersen, J.) (Dkt. No. 6);

McDonald v. United States District Court, No. 93 C 5832 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 1993) (Marovich, J.) (Dkt. No.

3); McDonald v. Burris, No. 93 C 6548 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 13, 1994) (Holderman, J.) (Dkt. No. 6); McDonald v.

Nevelle, No. 93 C 7397 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 1, 1994) (Holderman, J.) (Dkt. No. 7); McDonald v. Illinois, No. 96 C

8103 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 1997) (Norgle, J.) (Dkt. No. 5); McDonald v. Suter, No. 08 C 668 (D.D.C. Apr. 17,

2008) (Dkt. No. 3); McDonald v. Suter, No. 08 C 739 (D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2008) (Dkt. No. 3); McDonald v.

Porter, No. 08 C 342 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2009) (Dkt. No. 13); McDonald v. Feinerman, No. 08 C 395 (S.D. Ill.

12C576 Maurice J. McDonald (B42547) vs. Judge Stanley J. Sacks Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

Mar. 12, 2009) (Dkt. No. 11); McDonald v. Payne, No. 08 C 921 (S.D. Ill. July 27, 2009) (Dkt. No. 8). 

Plaintiff was previously warned that he has accrued three strikes and could not seek leave to proceed

in forma pauperis unless he was in an imminent danger of serious physical injury. McDonald v. Payne, No.

08 C 921 (S.D. Ill. July 27, 2009) (Dkt. No. 8 at 8-9).

Plaintiff’s present complaint is another attempt to challenge his 1993 conviction. He claims that he is

suffering from false imprisonment and wrongful conviction. As he does not seek his “‘immediate or speedier

release’” from confinement so his case is considered a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action governed by the Prison

Litigation Reform Act. Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544

U.S. 74, 82 (2005)). Plaintiffs seeks in forma pauperis status but his case does not meet the imminent danger

requirement. He also fails to disclose his prior litigation history, his three strike warning and has not paid his

outstanding past fees. These failures constitute an attempted fraud upon the Court. His case must be

immediately dismissed. Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Sloan v. Lesza, 181

F.3d 858, 859 (7th Cir. 1999). 

12C576 Maurice J. McDonald (B42547) vs. Judge Stanley J. Sacks Page 2 of 2