Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state valid claim, plaintiff-attorney’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendant-ARDC’s suspension of plaintiff, as well as ARDC’s alleged defamatory description of said suspension on its website violated his equal protection and substantive due process rights. Basis of 90-day and until further notice suspension was fact that: (1) plaintiff, who held New York law license, had applied for Illinois law license, but was turned down; (2) between 2004 and 2019, plaintiff nevertheless maintained active law practice in Illinois based on series of successful pro hac vice motions; (3) ARDC charged plaintiff with misconduct for representing that he was licensed to practice law in Illinois; and (4) defendant-ARDC administrator successfully moved Illinois Supreme Court to impose instant suspension. Ct. of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s argument that any Dist. Ct. judge, as licensed Illinois lawyer, was biased against him, and thus could not act on instant complaint. Ct. further found that suspension decision of Illinois Supreme Court could not be collaterally attacked via instant civil action. Moreover, plaintiff could not use section 1983 action to seek money damages against ARDC because ARDC, as state agency, was not “person” for section 1983 action purposes. Also, plaintiff could not bring defamation claim under section 1983 against defendant-ARDC administrator, since defamation action is not cognizable Constitutional claim under either equal protection or due process clauses. Ct. also issued rule to show cause as to why plaintiff should not be sanctioned for bringing instant action.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Section 1983 Action