Opinion
Case No. 15 C 4802
02-18-2016
KERWINN CROSS, Plaintiff, v. ANITA ALVAREZ, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Kerwinn Cross ("Cross") has just submitted what he labels as an "Addendum" (Dkt. No. 9) in which he seeks to add further allegations to his months-ago-dismissed Complaint and action in this case: On June 4, 2014 this Court had issued a memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") detailing the reasons for such dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. No. 6). Because Cross' current filing reveals that he has paid no attention to anything said in the Opinion (in more than one respect), the purported "Addendum" is stricken and this action remains terminated.
In brief, Cross once again attempts to target Assistant State's Attorney Jennifer Dillman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") for the claimed violation of his constitutional rights. But as Opinion at 3 explained, absolute prosecutorial immunity shields ASA Dillman from Section 1983 liability -- a principle established by the United States Supreme Court fully four decades ago and confirmed repeatedly since then.
There is also one other aspect of the Opinion to which the irresponsible Cross has paid no attention at all: his liability under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for the installment payment of the $350 filing fee for his action. Because of his total inattention to that order as set out in Opinion at 2, this Court is delivering copies of the Opinion and this memorandum order to its colleague Honorable Andrea Wood for whatever action she may deem appropriate (as Opinion at 2 reflects, earlier during the year 2015 Cross had filed three still-pending lawsuits in this District Court, all of which had been assigned to Judge Wood).
In sum, because this action has long since been dismissed with prejudice, no further order of termination is needed at this time. Instead the claimed "Addendum" is simply stricken from the file.
/s/_________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge Date: February 18, 2016