-4-
CONCLUSTON

For the reasons stated above, we deny plaintiff’s application

to proceed in forma pauperis. We also dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint.
DATE: April 16, 2002

CN
|
ENTER: “oH

John/F. Grady, United States District Judge



~3-
“A cause of action under § 1983 requires a plaintiff to
demonstrate that he was deprived of a right secured by the
Constitution or a federal law at the hand of someone acting under
color of law.” Hanania v. Loren-Maltese, 212 F.3d 353, 356 (7th
Cir. 2000). NES is a private entity, not a state actor. In
addition, the facts do not indicate that NES’s conduct deprived
plaintiff of a federal right. Although 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) does
permit actions against private entities who engage in a race-based
conspiracy, what plaintiff alleges does not fit that pattern. He
does not allege that NES conspired with anyone. Plaintiff also
fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits
racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of private
contracts. Plaintiff does not allege that NES refused to enter
into any contract with him because of his race. In fact, the
complaint does not allege any racial discrimination; its thrust is
simply that NES scored plaintiff’s test incorrectly. 42 U.S.C. §
2000h-2 does not create an independent federal claim; it merely
allows the United States Attorney General to intervene in a civil
rights action if the matter is of general public importance.
Plaintiff does not state any valid federal claim against NES.

Therefore, the complaint must be dismissed.


Minute Order Form (06/97)

vy S- lo United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

jam S Sitting Judge if Other
vine Magitrate Judge John F. Grady han Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 2413 DATE April 16, 2002
CASE Ali Sayman v. National Eval. Systems Inc.
TITLE

nature of the motion being presented. }

{in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the

(1) (For further detail see order (on reverse side of/attached to) the original minute order.]}

MOTION:
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) im) Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) QO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due____
(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon__—sset for at_
; (5) oO Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__———sset for at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___setfor__—at_
) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) G [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to sat
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
O FRCP4(m) O General Rule21 OO FRCP41(a)(1) © FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) a [Other docket entry] Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ J is denied and the

complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION.

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
‘a umber of notices:

Document
Number

x | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. TPR 1 ” 70n?

Notified counsel by telephone. daw docketed

Cy

docketing deputy initials

Docketing to mail notices.

x Mail AO 450 form.

7)

Copy to
date mailed notice
iy OQ} Moun
courtroom ea OE dy eg
KAM deputy’s _ KAM
inidals Bhdeitime.recelyed ig al
central Clerk's Office svaling deputy iniias

(Reserved for use by the Court)


02-2413.021-J3CD April 16, 2002

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

DOCKFTrn

ALI SAYMAN, ;
APR &7Z, 2o02_

Plaintiff,
v. No. 02 C 2413

NATIONAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the court is plaintiff's application to proceed in
forma pauperis. For the reasons explained below, the application
is denied, and the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ali Sayman, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
against National Evaluation Systems, Inc. (“NES”), which appears to
be a company that develops and administers teacher certification
tests. The complaint characterizes this action as one “for
correction of [plaintiff’s] [High School} Mathematics
Certification” test scores. Plaintiff petitions for leave to file
in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
DISCUSSION
The federal in forma pauperis statute is designed to ensure

that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the courts. See


-2-
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). However, to prevent
abuse of the broad access permitted by the statute, § 1915(e)
provides that “the court shall dismiss the case” if it finds that
the allegation of poverty is untrue or if it determines that the
action is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks damages from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). As for
the “failure to state a claim” factor, we will apply the familiar
Rule 12(b) (6) criterion that dismissal is in order if it is clear
that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could
be proved consistent with the allegations. Because Sayman is
proceeding pro se, we have a special responsibility to construe his

complaint liberally. See Donald v. Cook County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 95

F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir. 1996).

We believe that plaintiff has established that he is unable to
pay the necessary filing fees. However, even viewing the complaint
under a liberal standard, we find that it fails to state a claim
upon which we can grant relief. The Civil Cover Sheet filed with
the complaint invokes the court’s federal question jurisdiction and
indicates that this is a civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
1981, 1983, 1985(3), and 2000h-2. The allegations are insufficient
to state such claims, though, and we cannot see any other potential

federal claim in the facts described in the complaint.