Minne Qrder Porm (06:97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Iinois

Nume of Assigned Jud : Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge James B. Moran than Atsigned dautge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 4956 DATE 9/5/2002
CASE Dorothy J, Thomas vs. The State of Illinois et al.
TITLE

{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, c.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd purty plaintiff, und (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented]

MOTION:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) q Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer bricfdue__.
(4) a Ruling/Hearingon __sct for____at
(5) o Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on set for_ at.
(6) Oo Pretrial conference{held/continued to] [set for/re-sct for]on__—set for__— at
{7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at_
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}

OFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OOFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

(lo) ox [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff moves for leave to appeal
informa pauperis and, by various motions, for reconsideration of this court’s prior decisions. Those
motions are denied.

(aij ff [For further detail sec order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

wet:

No notices required.

furnber of notices
Notices mailed by judge's staff, s
EP
Notified counsel by telephone. af 920
7 | Docketing to mail notices.
; n } =
Mail AO 450 form, 18N09 Joerg sn ah Xe opis
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. :
Sa
rane “y
courtroom ne mailed mice
WAH depury's
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials



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

DOROTHY J. THOMAS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Ss. ) No. 02 C 4956
)
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, et al, ) i)
) Se “Mey,
Defendants. 5) Lp 0. LD

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and, by various motions, for
reconsideration of this court’s prior decisions. Those motions are denied.
If we believe we properly denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis before this court,
then we should deny the petition to so proceed on appeal. And we believe we properly denied

Jeave. Plaintiff cites Smith y. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S.

816 (1977), for the proposition that she has a clearly established right to due process. But a
majority of the Supreme Court there only assumed, but did not hold, that foster parents in
New York had a liberty interest in their status, thus triggering due process rights, and then
held that New York afforded adequate due process procedures, The Seventh Circuit in
Procopio v. Johnson, 994 F.2d 325 (7% Cir. 1993), held that the Minois statutes did not create
a liberty interest in the foster family relationship, and we are bound by that ruling. Plaintiff
may possibly be correct that her biological status as grandmother may create a liberty interest,
but that is by no means a clearly established constitutional right, Accordingly, the state actors

are shielded from personal liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity, a doctrine recently



No. 02 C 4956 Page 2

recognized in somewhat related circumstances in Doyle vy. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., No. 01-

2098 and No. 01-2359, F.3d __(7"" Cir. 2002).

8, Wloven

JAMES B. MORAN

S$ Senpor Judge, U, S, District Court
Load “ » 2002.