allegations she has claimed, it is clear from the cumulative filings that the web of conspiracies
described (involving many actors including the Ilinois State Police, the Circuit Court of Cook
County, the Department of Children and Family Services, and the Berwyn Police Department)
can only be described as delusional and fantastic.

For the reasons above, we deny plaintiff's action to proceed in forma pauperis and

dismiss plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.

" Mera

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

March 29, 2002


In the cover sheet to her pleadings, plaintiff also marks that defendant has violated
antitrust laws. We assume for purposes of this application that she is referring to the Sherman
Antitrust Act which prohibits “[e]very contract, combination...,or conspiracy, in restraint of
trade or commerce among the several states....” 15 U.S.C. § 1. To state a claim under this Act,
the defendant’s alleged conduct must have a sufficient relationship to interstate commerce and

defendant must have participated in anti-competitive conduct. Bunker Ramo Corp. v. United

Business Forms, Inc., 713 F.2d 1272 (7th Cir, 1983). The facts alleged do not satisfy these

requirements, and we find no federal antitrust laws implicated.

Plaintiff also appears to be alleging a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment
substantive due process rights. Plaintiff has adequately identified a fundamental right
protected under the Fourteenth Amendment—the right of a parent to make decisions
concerning the care custody and control of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S, 57, 66
(2000), citing Stanley v. Mlinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972). Even if the defendant infringed on
this right, however, the defendant is not violating the federal constitution since he is not a
government official or acting under the color of state law. See U.S.Const.Amend.XIV; 42
U.S.C. 1983. The remaining allegations of attorney misconduct against the defendant, which

include citations to the rules of professional conduct and the Illinois Supreme Court Rules, do

not state any federal question, Plaintiff has not stated a claim on which relief can be granted
by this court.

We recognize that this suit is one of nine suits filed by plaintiff last month against
various defendants. After reading all of the materials submitted to the court, we find that this
case can be dismissed on grounds that it is frivolous as well. An action should be dismissed as
frivolous if plaintiff's allegations are “fanciful,” “fantastic” or “delusional.” Denton y.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). While plaintiff may very well believe many of the


‘- Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

verde Magistrate Judge James B. Moran “than Asiged Suge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 1126 DATE 3/29/2002
CASE Pamela Kause et al. Vs. Dennis TorlII
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
MOTION: ‘of the motion being presented.]
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
@) a Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) a Ruling/Hearingon____esetfor____at
(5) im) Status hearing(held/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on setfor_ at
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_ ss at_—
(7) Qo Trial(set for/re-set for]on__—_aat
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto__at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) (General Rule21 [FRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41{a)(2).
(10) WW [Otherdocketentry]) Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. We deny plaintiff's action to proceed
in forma pauperis and dismiss plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.
(11) 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

R G18

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form,

docket initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice

courtroom
deputy’s
‘initials

WAH

Date/time teckived in
central Clerk’s Office

railing deputy initials



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

PAMELA KAUSE, KRYSTAL KAUSE )
and SUSAN CHALKER, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) No. 02 C 1126
)
Vv. ) Honorable James B, Moran
se
DENNIS TORIT )
) w
Defendant. ) Q °
¥

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Pamela Kause brings this action against her former attorney, Dennis Torii.
Along with the complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. For
the following reasons, plaintiff's petition is denied and her complaint is dismissed.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) we may authorize a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis
if she is unable to pay the prescribed court fees. The application here indicates that plaintiff
is not currently employed and has no other income. Plaintiff also claims that any other assets
have been taken away by her ex-husband with the aid of the defendant. On these facts,
plaintiff has established her inability to pay court fees.

The inquiry does not end with a finding of indigency, however. Under section 1915 we
must conduct an initial review of plaintiffs claims and dismiss the action if we find that: the
action is frivolous or malicious; it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
petitioner seeks damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Alston v. Debruy, 13 F.3d 1036, 1039 (7th Cir. 1994), In determining

whether plaintiff has properly stated a claim, we apply the same standards as if this were an

&
\

os


ordinary dismissa] under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Zimmerman vy. Tribble, 266 F.3d 568,571 (7th
Cir, 2000).

Plaintiff appears pro se, and accordingly we construe her pleadings liberally.
Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 845 (7th Cir. 1999). While there are three names listed
as plaintiffs in the title of this action, it appears from the in forma pauperis application as well
as all the filed material that there is one plaintiff, Pamela Kause, and one defendant, Dennis
Torii. Plaintiff asserts that we have federal question jurisdiction over these claims,

Plaintiff alleges that she obtained defendant as her attorney in January 2000.
According to plaintiff, defendant acted wrongfully in many ways including: failing to obtain
her right for a trial; causing the loss of her parental relationship; participating in arranging
an assault against plaintiff; failing to obtain various court orders; failing to obtain requested
birth records; refusing to take any property into custody for her; picking judges that were
against her; sending her to a criminal social worker against her will; committing bribery and
fraud; participating in corruption and extortion; breaking the rules of professional conduct;
and generally breaching his contract with plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that defendant’s wrongful

conduct constitutes a violation of federal antitrust laws and the federal Constitution.

We first address plaintiffs claim that defendant violated her right to have a trial, It
appears that plaintiff is attempting to state a Sixth Amendment claim. The Sixth Amendment
provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial..” U.S.Const.Amen.VI. In her pleadings, plaintiff refers to a divorce proceeding
and a state case in which her ex-husband was the defendant, and specifically states that she
has never been a criminal defendant. The Sixth Amendment protects the rights of criminal

defendants, and we are unable to find it applicable to the facts presented in the complaint.