‘bem (06197)

United States District Court, Northern District of Hlinois (8)

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Sitting Judge if Other

James B. Moran than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 01 C 9303 DATE %l2002
CASE Evelyn Saban vs. State of Illinois
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
Memorandum Opinion an Order

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) im} Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) QO Brief in support of motion due

(3) im Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.

(4) Qo Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .

(C) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) oO (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) 0 This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4(m) (CiGeneral Rule21 OFRCP41(a)(1) FRCP41(a)(2).

(0) [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's petition is denied as moot.
She is hereby notified of our intent to dismiss and has twenty-one (21) days to respond, that is, until
January 23, 2002.

at (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. Document
, . Numbei
No notices required. number of notices
Notices mailed by judge’s staff. WAN Q 3 700
Notified counsel by telephone. date docketes 2
v | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

WAH

courtroom
deputy’s
initials



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

EASTERN DIVISION
EVELYN SABAN, )
Plaintiff, }
vs. } No. 01 C 9303
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
Defendant. } iy

"oy,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Evelyn Saban brings this action against the State of Illinois. Along with her
complaint plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. For reasons set forth
below, plaintiff's petition is denied as moot and we dismiss her complaint sua sponte.

Since the filing of her application to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff has paid the
court costs, As a result, her petition is denied as moot. We recognize fatal flaws in her
complaint, however, and proceed sua sponte in dismissing her claims.

Plaintiffs complaint alleges that she has been forcibly injected with psychotropic drugs
while in custody at a state mental hospital, in violation of her religious beliefs. The remedy she
requests is that her state court “unfit to stand trial mental illness case” be thrown out so that
the criminal case against her may proceed. The complaint fails, however, because of the
defendant named and the remedy sought.

While plaintiff does not offer any legal authority to support her claim, she is a pro se
plaintiff and accordingly we construe her complaint liberally. Henderson y. Sheahan, 196 F.3d,

839, 845 (7th Cir. 1999), The allegations appear to state a first amendment violation, and we

4


No. 01C 9303 Page 2

will treat the complaint as being brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. A state is not a suable

person within the meaning of §1983. Willv. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S, 58 (1989).

The defendant in this case is immune from suit.

The complaint is also flawed in the relief sought. It is not within this court’s power to
intervene in a state action in the way proposed by the plaintiff. Federal courts cannot
intervene in an ongoing state criminal proceeding. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

Federal courts also cannot review a state adjudication. District of Columbia Court of Appeals

y. Feldman 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

Sua sponte dismissals are appropriate where sufficient basis for the court’s action is
apparent from the plaintiff's pleading. Apostol v. Laundau, 957 F.2d 339, 343 (7th Cir. 1992).
As is required when dismissing claims sua sponte, we hereby notify plaintiff of our intent to
dismiss the complaint and provide her with an opportunity to respond. See Stewart Title
Guaranty Co. v. Cadle Co., 74 F.3d 835, 836 (7th Cir. 1996).

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's petition is denied as moot. She is hereby
notified of our intent to dismiss and has twenty-one days to respond, that is, until January 23,

2002.

Arco B Meco

Ss JAMES B. MORAN
e]

Senior Judge, U. S. District Court
ai aa: he _, 2002.