Cc la
ED a He hap
RECEIV UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eg WET?
yak 13.2003 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Laem
yy, posains EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL prstRict couRT sega

CLERK, U-S>

Plaintifits)
CQiyy &. Weilseny .

v.

Cere00 foites’ deo (

~~ 88C 1821

- JUDGE SHapUR

MAGISTR, TE JUDGE MASON

OM of Aboot MWLCA Wy DOP We Wwalldhig to Vhe dos So,
with. A Snicwds Z wos srppped by on odtten of Sne Chee
Dotice Depact ments wud Colbed aud told diet or Qa the
decatption of » Denson ented Lor moe de,

Tas Votd. Cow deettotions wets Stuvloe
pug Sovtel Seevelty Nomnee Meet Si vlan

Aud ove Hietndens “wene sime/or,

= they told oGicens Vnet was Mot me and do clout mel
up ail ne Wd to do wm Cheesy walle Now my zdedadwo
ebticer Yen @emoved ny weller Seom my bre poole” .
‘eblicess then ewove my (Syate of sree: FiO. Que
{ Sogn ce euetty evad)) my (Me ditel <vwe awoy 0 aus); anid ot
uUraiaes Coons of Sid, By, oNegns srl detesed to uneo
“AND helene ME, FN Sten) Tes pinced jute a Cftenn Pobii
Ginn gol Guted Yrons poked tO ‘Cicero police Doce
Repeermesk, Liaqer danted asd locked vo unit my finger
Prins Cenred ANd was Vheu felened a
Wed fous F. wHs ne uted ConsTitotion a} Dighys, tole weten
and egal pore ctiod undee +NE - [nw “awd Londal meyt a)
deus) drew yoo and God Bless



ue Oe Fem (0657) 4

IM United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
J reessaaze ue Milton [, Shadur “Than Assfned Judge
Ease NUMBER 03 € 1821 DATE 4/14/2003
CASE Clyde Williams vs. Cicero Police Department
TITLE

[In the follwing box (u) indicate the party fi
of the motion being presented,}

the motion, e.g., pluintil?, defendunt, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY;

(1) oO Filed motion of | use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

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

@ Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at

6) O Status hearing| held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on __ set for at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continucd to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at

(7) Oo Trial{set for/re-set for] on at

(8) o (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) OLocal Rule 41.1 COPRCP41(ay1) O FRCP41(a)(2).

(io) [Other docket entry} Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order, Cicero’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion is
granted. And because Williams’ candid allegations provide no wiggle room for changes that would
arguable wrap him within a Section 1983 mantle, this action is dismissed as well. That renders Williams”
motion for appointment of counsel moot, and it is denied on that ground. (11-1)

(11) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order, ]

No notices required, advised in open court Document
Number

No notives required. her of rat

APR 4.6 2003

nie decketed,

¢ | Notices mailed by judge’s statt.

Notified counset by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

sy opamererqd sa
Mail AO.430 form BLOTS A iia
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. a
any2083
courtroom site med notice
sw deputy's sn
initials:
Date/time received in .
gentral Clerk's Office nal pusy ite



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CLYDE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
No. 03 ¢ 1821

v.

CICERO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant. ‘

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND_ORDER Ape 7g 2005
On April 11, 2003 there were delivered to this Court's
chambers both (1) the properly-filled-out Motion for Appointment
of Counsel (“Williams' Motion”), identifying a number of
unsuccessful efforts by pro se 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”)
plaintiff Clyde Williams (“Williams”) to retain counsel on his
own’ and (2) the motion to dismiss filed by the Town of Cicero
(“Cicero,” which came into the case instead of Williams’
incorrectly named defendant, the “Cicero Police Department”) .*

If Williams' self-prepared Complaint stood any chance of

keeping him in court in the face of Cicero's motion, this Court

) That action was taken in response to this Court's
March 19, 2003 memorandum order (“Order”), which allowed Williams
to proceed with this action initially by viewing his Complaint
through a generous lens as taught by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam).

2 As the Order pointed out, the proper defendant in any
Section 1983 action of the type sought to be advanced by Williams
would actually be the individual police officer involved, not
Cicero as such. But in light of the analysis hereafter set out
in this opinion, Williams would fare no better if he were to
identify the arresting officer and seek to state a claim against
him or her.



that negates a Fourth Amendment violation even though Williams
turned out to be the wrong person (Marshall and cases cited
there) .

That being the case, as stated at the outset of this
opinion, Cicero's Rule 12(b) (6) motion is granted. And because
Williams' candid allegations provide no wiggle room for changes
that would arguably wrap him within a Section 1983 mantle, this
action is dismissed as well. That renders Williams' Motion moot,

and it is denied on that ground.

Cell. DP Gsston.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 14, 2003