Minute Order Forth (0si92),

ia United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton I. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other

or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 03 C 1821 DATE 3/19/2003
CASE Clyde Williams vs. Cicero Police Department
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

of the motion being presented.}

MOTION: =

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) Oo 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 set for at

(5) Qo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__—at_
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on__—_—setffor__at
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at

(8) Oo {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to,_..__at

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

OOFRCP4(m) OLocalRule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) a [Other docket entry] | Enter Memoran d Order. Williams’ request for in forma pauperis status
is granted. (4-1) As soon a Williams completes t the motion forms for appointment of counsel with some
appropriate showing of an unsuccessful attempt or attempts on his part to retain legal counsel, this Court
will act on the renewed Motion. x

(1) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. Document
No notices required. samt fustes Number
Y | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

MAR 2 florea

date dockered

IS

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Sig *s: docketing depo ils
Copy to judge/magistrate judge pig Sa
snsreos
S044
courtroom id 6 ayy &y date mailed novice
- ‘cams CL g2 4 sw
initials =
ET Babine: feceived in
central Clerk's Office ning deputy ils



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

MAR 2 0 2003
CLYDE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 03 C 1821

CICERO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM_ ORDER

Clyde Williams (“Williams”) has just submitted a self-
prepared one-page handwritten Complaint against the Cicero Police
Department (“Department”), coupled with his filled-out forms of
an In Forma Pauperis Application: (“Application”) and Motion for
Appointment of Counsel ("Motion”).. Although nonlawyer Williams
is understandably unaware (1) that. the Department is not a suable
legal entity and (2) that in all.events a 42 U.S.C. §1983
complaint of this nature should target the police officers
involved rather than the Department or the Town of Cicero itself,
this Court concludes that under the teaching of Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per cliriam) --which calls for reading
such pro se pleadings with a particularly generous eye--the
action should be permitted to proceed.

Because the Application doés provide a satisfactory showing
as to Williams’ inability to pay the $150 filing fee, his request
for in forma pauperis status is granted. As for the Motion,

however, Williams has not satisfied our Court of Appeals'



requirement that a plaintiff itust reflect some efforts to obtain
legal representation on his or her own before the court can be in
a position to appoint counsel to handle the matter. Accordingly
fresh copies of the Motion fort are being transmitted to Williams
with a copy of this memorandiifiiZerder--and as soon as he completes
those forms with some appropriate showing of an unsuccessful
attempt or attempts on his part. to retain legal counsel, this
Court will act on the renewed Motion.

As and when that takes place, this Court will expect to look
to the appointed counsel to engage in appropriate efforts to
ascertain the identity of the officer or officers who engaged in
the asserted violation of Williams' Fourth Amendment rights.*
Until then, the “Cicero Police Department” will remain as the
nominal party defendant, despite the difficulties in that respect

identified earlier in this memotandum order.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior,.United States District Judge

Date: March 19, 2003

+ As always, this opinion _adheres to the conventional and
convenient (though technically imprecise) practice of referring
to the underlying Bill of Rights provision (which of course
imposes limitations only on the federal government) rather than
to the Fourteenth Amendment (which applies to state actors and
has been construed to embody such Bill of Rights guaranties).

5