wer AO 450(Rev. 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois

Eastern Division

Dorothy J. Thomas JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
v. Case Number: 02 C 4956
The State of Illinois et al.

O Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been
tried and the jury rendered its verdict.

| Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues
have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma
pauperis is denied and her complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court

Date: 7/19/2002 s . y x

Willie A. Haynes, Deputy Chetk



>~
No. 02 C 4956 Page3

governmental interest such as the prevention of child abuse. Berman v. Young, 291 F.3d 976,
983 (7th Cir. 2002).

Here we have a grandmother who alleges that she was caring for her grandchildren,
she had an oral contract with DCFS that she would be their foster parent, and defendants
intervened in their relationship without probable cause and without affording her due process.
While the Seventh Circuit has found that a non-biological foster parent does not have a
constitutionally protected liberty interest in the family relationship with the foster children,
see Procopio v. Johnson, 994 F.2d 325, 329 (7th Cir. 1993), is not clear what rights and due
process are afforded a foster parent who is a biological relative of the foster children.

It is this lack of clarity regarding the rights of relative foster families that protects
defendants from liability. Under the doctrine of qualified immunity government actors
performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability as long as they do not violate

clearly established constitutional rights. Berman, 291 F.3d at 983, Since plaintiff's

constitutional rights are not firmly established by statute or caselaw, defendants cannot be
liable for their alleged violations.
For the above reasons, plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and

her complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

@

JAMES B. MORAN
enior Judge, U. S, District Court

Vf J q , 2002.


oO

SS Miaute Stir For (0697)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

(g

Nai ign itt
gr Magistrate Judge James B. Moran “han Asigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 4956 DATE 7119/2002
CASE Dorothy J. Thomas vs. The State of Illinois et al.
TITLE

[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.]

(1)

MOTION:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) o Ruling/Hearingon__setfor__at
(5) oO Status hearing(held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——ssetfor_— at
(6) a) Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___setfor____at___.
(7) im Trial[set for/re-set for}on___at
(8) oO [BenchyJury trial} [Hearing] held/continued to___at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule 21 CIFRCP41(a)(1) OFRCP41(a)(2).
(10) +x [Other docket entry} Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in

forma pauperis is denied, and her complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

| [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,

No notices required. ,
umber of notices

Notices mailed by judge's staff. WL 23 22
Notified counset by telephone. date docketed
Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom €2:6 WY 22 I 20

WAH deputy’s
Rane

initials
central

railing deputy initials



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

EASTERN DIVISION
DOROTHY J. THOMAS, )
Plaintiff, }
)
vs. } No. 02 C 4956 DOCKETED
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, et al., ) JUL 2 3 2002
Defendants. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Dorothy Thomas brings this complaint alleging constitutional violations and
pendent state claims. Along with her complaint plaintiff has filed an application to proceed
in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis
is denied.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) the court may authorize a plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis if she is unable to pay the prescribed court fees. The application here indicates that
plaintiff is currently unemployed. While she states she receives some money from public aid,
plaintiff does not identify any other source of savings or income. On these facts, she has
established her inability to pay court fees.

Our inquiry does not end with a finding of indigency, however. Under section 1915
we must conduct an initial review of plaintiff’s claims and dismiss the action if we find that the
action is frivolous or malicious; it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
petitioner seeks damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-Giii); Alston v. Debruy, 13 F.3d 1036, 1039 (7th Cir. 1994). This action does not

appear to be frivolous or malicious. Under the Eleventh Amendment, the State of Illinois and

oo


~~
No. 02 C 4956 Page 2

the Department of Children and Family Services are both immune from liability. For the
following reasons, the remaining defendants are also shielded from liability.

The facts of this case are taken from plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff is the maternal
grandmother of a nineteen-year-old and two minor children and brings this action on her own
behalf and on behalf of her grandchildren. While difficult to read, the complaint appears to
allege that on July 12, 2000, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), by order
of the Juvenile Court, took the two minor grandchildren into protective custody. Plaintiff
alleges that this was done with no prior notice to her, Plaintiff had been caring for the
children, and had allegedly made a contract with DCFS to be the children’s relative guardian.

Plaintiff argues that the two minor children should not have been removed from her
care without a showing of probable cause, and that the removal violated her Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. She also alleges that DCFS breached its contract with her and
intentionally inflicted harm when it removed the children without preparing her or the
children for the separation, Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to unlawfully
remove the grandchildren, and additionally conspired to abuse and cover up abuse of her
nineteen-year-old granddaughter, including rape by a DCFS agent and unlawfully placing her
in a mental institution to Keep her from testifying against DCFS,

It is well established that the state is limited in its power to regulate family
relationships. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). Courts have recognized that
parents have a constitutionally protected right to raise their children, and children havea right
to be raised by their parents. Troxel y. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). This right is not

absolute, and a state may intervene in a family relationship where there is a strong