From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. North Chicago Police Department

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
May 11, 2009
No. 09 C 1475 (N.D. Ill. May. 11, 2009)

Opinion

No. 09 C 1475.

May 11, 2009


MEMORANDUM ORDER


This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") action was originally filed pro se by Joe Louis Jones, Jr., but this Court then followed its customary practice of appointing members of the trial bar to represent plaintiffs (such as Jones) who qualify for such treatment — a practice that serves the interests not only of the plaintiffs but those of defendants and this Court, all of whom are better off when there are lawyers on both sides of the case. Last Thursday (May 8) appointed counsel Andrew Muchoney filed a notice of motion ("Notice") asking that the previously set May 12 status hearing be reset because of a prior commitment on his part.

Muchoney's Notice states that he will appear before this Court at 9:15 a.m. May 12, even though the basis for his motion is that he has a scheduling conflict requiring his appearance in the Will County Courthouse at the time of the prescheduled status hearing. As always, counsel would do well to review filings before they are submitted to avoid such errors.

This Court grants Muchoney's motion. Three points must be made in that respect, however:

1. Because Muchoney did not comply with this District Court's rule requiring that a hard copy of every electronically filed document must be delivered to the chambers of the assigned judge within one day after the electronic filing, this Court was totally unaware of Muchoney's request. It was pure happenstance that this Court's minute clerk obtained an electronic printout that reflected the existence of the motion, so that this Court learned of it in advance of tomorrow's date.
2. Because Muchoney offices in Joliet, this Court will adhere to another of its customary practices where out-of-town counsel are involved: It sets status hearings for 8:45 a.m. so that counsel can participate telephonically rather than having to travel to Chicago for a brief status report. It is, of course, counsel's responsibility to initiate the telephone call promptly (a few minutes before 8:45 a.m.) — the telephone number is 312.435.5766.
3. Muchoney has not indicated what efforts he has made to serve process on the North Chicago Police Department ("Department") or to ascertain the identity of the persons designated by Jones as "Unknown Patrol Officers." This Court has set the next status hearing date a month out — to 8:45 a.m. June 12 — in the expectation that sufficient service will have been made so as to have defense counsel present at that time.

This Court recognizes that the Department is not a suable legal entity. Under the circumstances of this case, however, service on the Department has to be the first step toward identifying the proper defendants.


Summaries of

Jones v. North Chicago Police Department

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
May 11, 2009
No. 09 C 1475 (N.D. Ill. May. 11, 2009)
Case details for

Jones v. North Chicago Police Department

Case Details

Full title:JOE LOUIS JONES, JR., Plaintiff, v. NORTH CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Date published: May 11, 2009

Citations

No. 09 C 1475 (N.D. Ill. May. 11, 2009)