Cooney v. Casady

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting motion for summary judgment by defendants-various DCFS officials in plaintiff's section 1983 action alleging that defendants deprived her of due process by conspiring with individual (hired by DCFS to transcribe DCFS appeal hearing) to alter said transcripts in effort to uphold “indicated finding” against plaintiff in her subsequent appeal to circuit court that concerned question as to whether plaintiff had inflicted mental injuries on her children. Record failed to contain any evidence that defendants met with instant transcriber or had any sort of communication with her regarding said transcripts so as to establish any conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of her due process rights. Moreover, while transcripts produced by instant transcriber contained discrepancies when compared with transcripts generated by independent transcriber, plaintiff failed to show that instant transcriber had “altered” any transcript, especially where certain discrepancies had actually favored plaintiff. Ct. also issued plaintiff rule to show cause why she should not be sanctioned under Rule 38 for filing frivolous appeal where plaintiff merely rehashed arguments that she made to Dist. Ct., which had warned her that her complaint bordered on being frivolous.