“Silinois Supreme Court Rule 764(b) states that no suspended attorney can “maintain a presence or
occupy an office where the practice of law is conducted.” Jd. Furthermore, the rule plainly states
that this includes positions such as “lawyer, counsellor at law, legal assistant, legal clerk, or similar
title.” Jd. Plaintiff’s request to perform the work of a paralegal, a position for which the ARDC was
not even seeking applicants, is inconsistent with this rule. The ARDC’s refusal to consider his
application for the position of staff attorney based on his current inability to practice law was proper.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’ s request to waive the limitations in Rule 764(b) is meritless. Plaintiff offers
no support for his contention that the Administrator can waive provisions of the Illinois Supreme
Court Rules. See Harris v. Annunzio, 103 N.E.2d 477, 479 (Ill. 1952) (holding that Illinois Supreme
Court Rules have the force of law). Therefore, Count VI, the only claim that survived the 8/28/03

Order, is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants Attorney Registration and Disciplinary
Commission, Mary Robinson, Tracy Kepler, and Rosalyn Kaplan’s Motion to Reconsider Ruling
as to Count VI [doc. no. 24-1] is granted. Defendants’ alternative Motion to Stay Further
Proceedings Pending a Final Determination of Plaintiffs Disciplinary Case [doc. no. 24-2] is denied
as moot. All counts of Plaintiff's complaint are now dismissed with prejudice. This is a final and

appealable order.

SO ORDERED. Sb /\ g ¥ ENTERED: Le
HON. RONALD A. GUZMAN
United States Judge


‘ 54(b) when such motions are filed after an interlocutory order and before the entry of a ‘final
judgment.’”). Defendants have moved this Court to reconsider the 8/28/03 Order denying their
motion to dismiss Plaintiff's ADA claim, arguing that: (1) the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiffs
claim for declaratory relief and damages under the ADA; and (2) Plaintiff is not entitled to
prospective injunctive relief.

The Court agrees with Defendants that the 8/28/03 Order was based on an erroneous reading
of Bruggeman v. Blagojevich, 324 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2003). The Court will therefore reconsider the
motion to dismiss Count VI.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff from suing for declaratory relief or damages under
Title I or Title II of the ADA. See Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360 (2001);
Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 72 (1985); Bruggeman, 324 F.3d at 912. Indeed, Plaintiff concedes
that he is not entitled to declaratory relief or damages under the ADA. (PI.’s Resp, at 2.) Therefore,
Count VI must be dismissed with prejudice to the extent it seeks declaratory relief and damages.
Plaintiff alleges, however, that he may obtain prospective injunctive relief, /.e., an order requiring
the ARDC to interview and/or employ him. This claim must also be dismissed with prejudice.

First, the limited exception to the Eleventh Amendment bar on suits against states, announced
in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908), “permits relief against state officials only when
there is an ongoing or threatened violation of federal law.” Vickery v. Jones, 100 F.3d 1334, 1346
(7th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff, on the other hand, seeks relief for the ARDC’s past failure to hire him for
a paralegal position. Second, Plaintiff acknowledges his suspension from the practice of law,
pursuant to I!linois Supreme Court Rule 774. Illinois law has established clear guidelines upon

which suspended attorneys must behave in relation to the legal community. See Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 764.


Minute Ogdar For (06/97)
ot United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
I

Name of Assigned Judge Ronald A. Guzman Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 5996 DATE 5/6/2004
CASE PAUL G. PETERSON vs. USA, et al
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) Qa Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

(3) go Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer briefdue___.

(4) ia} Ruling/Hearing on setfor_ at

(5) Oo 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__—ssetfor__——sat_—
(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—sat__—.

(8) i) (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

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

CUFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a)(1) CFRCP41(a)(2).

qo) [Other docket entry) ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants Attorney
Registration and Disciplinary Commission, Mary Robinson, Tracey Kepler and Rosalyn Kaplan’s motion
to reconsider ruling as to Count VI [doc. No. 24-1] is granted. Defendants’ alternative motion to stay
further proceedings pending a final determination of plaintiff's disciplinary case [doc. No. 24-2] is denied
as moot. All counts of plaintiff's complaint are now dismissed with prejudice. This is a final and
appealable order.

aib ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. number of notices
Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. HAY {2a
VY | Docketing to mail notices. |
2. .
SY Mail AO 450 form. ara docketing dbpaty tit OO iL
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. Alec by! ° ;
. ay 8 0 20K
date mailed notice
courtroom wey Ge
cG deputy’s ghia?
initials
Date/time,received in 7
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials

EL wd



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

PAUL G. PETERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DRUG
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, ATTORNEY
REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY
COMMISSION, ILLINOIS SUPREME
COURT, MARY ROBINSON,
Administrator of the ARDC, TRACY
KEPLER and ROSALYN KAPLAN,
employees of the ARDC,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

we SSS eS SS SS SSS Ew

02 C 5996

Judge Ronald A. Guzman

Before the Court is Defendants Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission

(“ARDC”), Mary Robinson, Tracy Kepler, and Rosalyn Kaplan’s Motion to Reconsider Ruling as

to Count VI or, Alternatively, to Stay Further Proceedings Pending a Final Determination of

Plaintiff's Disciplinary Case. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to reconsider is granted,

and Count VI of the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Paul G. Peterson has sued Defendants the United States of America, the Department

of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency,! the ARDC, the

' None of the federal defendants was served with the complaint.

3



“‘Fllinois Supreme Court, Mary Robinson, Administrator of the ARDC, and Tracy Kepler and Rosalyn
Kaplan, employees of the ARDC, alleging numerous claims under the constitution; Titles I and II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12111 ef seg. and 42 U.S.C. § 12131
et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621; and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The facts
alleged in the complaint were set forth in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of August
28, 2003 (“8/28/03 Order”) and will not be repeated here.

In the 8/28/03 Order, the Court granted the Illinois Supreme Court’s motion to dismiss as to
all counts against it. The Court granted in part and denied in part the ARDC’s motion to dismiss.
The Court denied the ARDC’s motion to dismiss Count VI, which seeks declaratory relief and
damages under Titles I and II of the ADA. Count VI against the ARDC was the only claim
remaining after the 8/28/03 Order. Defendants now ask the Court to reconsider the denial of the
motion to dismiss Count VI, or alternatively, to stay further proceedings pending a final

determination of Plaintiff's disciplinary case?

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b); “[A]ny order. .. which adjudicates fewer
than all the claims . . . is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating
all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” See Pivot Point Int’l, Inc. v. Charlene

Prods., Inc., 816 F. Supp. 1286, 1287 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (“Motions to reconsider are governed by Rule

? The Supreme Court of Illinois issued a ruling on the disciplinary case on March 12,
2004, in which Plaintiff was suspended from the practice of law for thirty months. This Court
took judicial notice of the ruling on March 24, 2004.

2