No. 00 C 7965 Page 3

claim arises under state law and can only survive in federal court supplemental to an
independently viable federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Where the court has no subject
matter jurisdiction there is “no rational argument in law or fact” to support the claim for relief
and the case must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See jones, 777 F.2d
at 1279,

Because we are uncertain about the true nature of this suit, we dismiss without
prejudice. Plaintiff is advised, however, that any future pleadings must comply with Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring a clear statement showing why she is
entitled to relief. As the Supreme Court has explained, the essential purpose of this
requirement is to give the defendants fair notice of the plaintiffs’ claims and the grounds upon
which they rest, so defendants can adequately prepare a defense, See, e.g., Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). We cannot decipher anything meaningful from this complaint, and we
believe any prospective defendant would be equally ata loss. Plaintiff must identify a proper
defendant and clearly explain the basis for her claim.

Plaintiff's petition to Proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and her complaint is

dismissed without prejudice.

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

Q.. 2G , 2000.


Minute Order Form (06/97)

W United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois (9)
AY

ofscctert tte | Tames B. Moran | Ste ue ot
7
CASE NUMBER 00 C 7965 DATE 12/28/2000
CASE Linda Mobley vs. Stevenson Dan Ryan
TITLE

nature of the motion being presented.]

Un the following box (a) indicate the party fling the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff and (b) slate briefly the

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

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

MOTION:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.}
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
@) o Answer brief to motion due____. Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) Q Ruling/Hearing on setfor_ at
(5) im Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on____setfor___—_at
(6) im) Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for} on setfor_ ss at_
(7) ie} Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—_at
(8) Qa [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to ____at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

CUFRCP4(m) General Rule 21 CFRCP41(a)(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) «Ms [Otherdocket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's petition to proceed informa

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

ov | Docketing to mail notices. Ny)
¥ | Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

bolcb 2d bi 2: 16
courtroom
WAH deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office

Nott ty hone HEC

date maited notice

mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
LINDA MOBLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. 00 C 7965

STEVENSON DAN RYAN,

&

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER “ty

wwe eee SOS

Defendants,

Plaintiff Linda Mobley, a resident of Chicago, Illinois, filed this civil lawsuit ‘on
December 20, 2000. The handwritten complaint is incredibly vague about the nature of her
claim, but seems to seek damages for her son’s death on the Stevenson Expressway and for her
resulting emotional distress. The named defendant is “Stevenson Dan Ryan,” an apparent
reference to the highways. Plaintiff also petitions this court to proceed in forma pauperis. For
the reasons set forth below her petition is denied and the case is dismissed without prejudice.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), this court may authorize a plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis if the party is unable to pay the prescribed court fees. Plaintiff indicates that she
receives $500 per month in disability or workers compensation payments, and has no other
valuable assets, Although her application is somewhat incomplete, for now we assume she
satisfies the indigency requirements.

Regardless, we find that her complaint must be dismissed. Amendments to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 in the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act require us to dismiss the case if (i) the action

is frivolous or malicious, (ii) it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or (iii)



No. 00 C 7965 Page 2

petitioner seeks damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). The case will be dismissed as “frivolous” if petitioner can make “no rational

argument in law or fact to support his claims for relief.” Jones v. Morris, 777 F.2d 1277, 1279

(7th Cir. 1985), quoting Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247 (7th Cir.1983),

First, we are confounded by the lack of an identifiable defendant. Highways are not
legal persons and cannot be sued. On the civil cover sheet, plaintiff writes, “Wrongful death
pursuing on the Stevenson Expressway, on broken pavement.” It is unclear whether she is
alleging some unlawful pursuit, perhaps by a police officer, improper road maintenance or
some other basis for her suit. From what plaintiff has stated, defendants could be anyone from
the United States to the Illinois Department of Transportation for improper highway design
or maintenance,! or some police agency for reckless pursuit. Despite our responsibility to
construe pro se pleadings liberally, see Donald y. Cook County Sheriff's Dep’t, 95 F.3d 548,
555 (1996), we cannot save this complaint,

We are also concerned that we have no subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute.
The civil cover sheet indicates a federal question based on a civil rights violation, but we
cannot discern any federal question from the complaint. It does not refer to any federal
statute, indicate any state actor or describe anyone acting under color of law. Nor would the
complaint satisfy diversity Jurisdiction. While a wrongful death award would likely exceed

$75,000, all of the parties appear to reside in Illinois. Further, plaintiff's emotional distress

1 Sovereign immunity would likely bar any claim based on highway design or maintenance anyway.
The federal government’s role in highway construction is limited, and falls under the Federal Tort Claims
Act’s “discretionary activities” exception. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). See, e.g., Mahler v. United States, 306 F.2d
713 (3d Cir. 1963); Rich v. United States, 119 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 1997); First Nat?l Bank of Effingham y.
United States, 565 F.Supp. 119 (S.D. Ill. 1983). Further, Illinois has only waived its sovereign immunity
within its state claims court, so the Eleventh Amendment would preclude any federal claim against IDOT. See

Creek v. Shell Development Corp., 1989 WL 24088 at *5 (ND. Ill. Mar. 5, 1989),