IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BRAZZILE ALEXANDER, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 4205

)

THEOPHILUS SMITH, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This Court first learned of the existence of this case in an

indirect fashion--just after December 6 a filing was delivered to

its chambers that bore the caption “Re-Notice of Agreed Motion.” 

Although this Court’s name was listed in the case caption, the

notice stated that Assistant Corporation Counsel Carla Kupe-Arion

would “appear before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo” in this

Court’s courtroom on December 18 to present a motion seeking an

enlargement of time for one of the defendants to file a

responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). When

this Court inquired of its minute clerk about the apparently

mistaken notice, she checked into the matter and learned that the

case had indeed come to this Court’s calendar via a December 4

reassignment from Judge Bucklo’s calendar.

Because Judge Bucklo does not appear to maintain chambers

files in cases assigned to her calendar, this Court’s minute

clerk printed out paper copies of the relevant documents. They

comprise:
1. the original pro se Complaint filed by Brazzile

Alexander (“Alexander”) and Ronnie Freeney (“Freeney”) on

May 30, 2012, prepared on the form of Complaint for

Violation of Constitutional Rights made available for pro se

plaintiffs by the Clerk’s Office;

2. an August 27 motion to dismiss the Complaint filed

by Renaissance at South Shore, Inc. (“Renaissance”), and the

contemporaneously filed memorandum in support of that

motion;

3. the FAC filed on October 1, using the same form as

the original Complaint but bearing only Freeney’s name as

plaintiff and containing on page 1 the legend “This has been

prepared in part by the pro se assistance program for

plaintiff Freeney only”;

4. Freeney’s November 1 Response to Renaissance’s

motion to dismiss;

5. Renaissance’s November 16 reply brief in support of

that motion; and 

6. the earlier-mentioned Re-Notice of Agreed Motion.

Before the presentment date of that last-mentioned motion,

there are some significant matters that should be addressed based

on the papers received to date. This sua sponte memorandum

opinion and order will discuss them briefly, in the anticipation

that all parties will appear at the scheduled presentment date

2
(even though an agreed motion for extension would normally not

call for an in-court appearance).

To begin with, Freeney’s response to Renaissance’s motion to

dismiss discloses that Alexander (his mother) has passed away. 

Although Freeney characterizes himself as “the natural heir,

closest living and immediate family member of Ms. Brazzile

Alexander,” his filing recognizes that action must be taken under

Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 25(a) if any claim or claims is or are

intended to be pursued by or for Alexander’s estate. This Court 1

will take no action in that respect pending an appropriate

Rule 25 submission.

As for Renaissance’s motion to dismiss, Freeney’s response

charges Renaissance with “conspiracy” even while acknowledging

that it is not a “state actor” in the sense required for it to be

sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”). Here for example

are relevant parts of Freeney’s filing:

The Renaissance Nursing Home, although privately owned

and also “for profit” is still regulated by the State

of Illinois. They broke the guidelines purported [sic]

by the state authority which we can prove from

evidence.

* * *

The Renaissance is an independent “for profit”

organization. For “Profit” creates motive and probable

cause. They conspired to defraud Ms. Alexander and

remove resistance; i.e. (fill a bed).

 As noted earlier, the FAC has been advanced by Freeney 1

alone.

3
According to State Laws governing long term care

facilities handed down by Governor Pat Quinn and

Illinois Department of Aging Director Charles D. Johns,

Renaissance Nursing Home violated 10 Rights.

Those assertions reflect a mistaken notion of the scope of

federal jurisdiction. Although Freeney’s FAC has added Chicago

Police Officer Gary Williams as a defendant (the original

Complaint had referred to an unidentified “John Doe” officer),

but Freeney’s responsive memorandum says only that Officer

Williams “falsely arrest[ed]” Freeney “[a]t the urging of Kevin

McInerney, Director of Operations at the Renaissance.” That does

not suffice to place Renaissance’s actions “under color of law,”

as Section 1983 requires.

In sum, Renaissance’s motion for its dismissal is granted. 

Further proceedings in the case will be discussed at the

scheduled December 18 presentment date.2

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: December 12, 2012 

 Dkt. 13 states that a summons had been served on the 2

third defendant, Theophilus Smith, on June 18. That seems likely

to have been mistaken, because Dkt. 23 states that a summons was

returned unexecuted as to Smith on October 29. This Court also

expects to inquire into that matter during the December 18

proceeding.

4