Pro Se Chicago's Weblog

April 19, 2018

Complaint for mandamus; civil rights relief from incompetent judges


When judges or officials are incompetent, malicious, or plain mean and violate your civil rights there are two other means that the public usually doesn’t realize by which they can obtain relief even during the case. The judge or official must have a mandatory (non-discretionary) duty under the law or constitution to do a particular act, must have failed to do it, and must be able to do it if ordered to do so in order to use a mandamus complaint. Civil rights law is very complicated. Both types of complaints should be handled by an attorney, but as a starting place if you are interested in such complaints then this is an example that was filed by me, a non-attorney pro se. Look up the case law and look up cases regarding mandamus or civil rights in the circuit courts and under your states’ laws.

  1. Mandamus – this is where you ask a court to order an official (including a judge) to perform a task that is mandatory and not discretionary like set a bail when no bail was set in violation of the law – in Illinois no bail is allowed only on murder cases, cases where the sentence may be life, or cases where a due process hearing was held and the defendant is proven to be a danger to the public or himself.
  2. Civil rights complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Suppose a court refuses to allow you to put any witnesses on the stand, refuses to allow you to subpoena documents or refuses to accommodate your disabilities, even when you discussed them with the disability coordinator and followed the court procedures. Under the federal civil rights act section 1983 you can ask a different court (either state or federal) under federal law to declare the judge’s acts or orders in violation of law or the constitution (declaratory relief) and order the judge to follow the law and allow you compulsory process or force the judge to accommodate your disabilities (injunctive relief).
Advertisements

13 Comments »

  1. Wonderful info! Just hit up our states atty and his civil chief today.
    Question is, where is a “writ for mandamus” filed/handled for a social security branch office that is non compliant with law?

    Comment by Randy — September 18, 2017 @ 5:28 pm

  2. I’m not sure, but the Federal District Court should have jurisdiction as social security is a federal program. So, I don’t think that the state court chancery division would have jurisdiction. You might want to look at federal rules of civil procedure and federal district court Westlaw or similar reporter for case law.

    Comment by Linda Shelton — September 18, 2017 @ 6:21 pm

  3. Great Post Linda. Let us not forget judges that discriminate against the disabled appearing pro se. Not only did the chancery judge discriminate against in violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act, he went further by making fun of me in open court. The Department of Justice has a web page just for state court judges that discriminate against the disabled. Also, the plaintiff knew of my disabilities and used it against me. I do have the court transcripts. You can go to http://disabilityjustice.org/ensuring-adequate-legal-representation/ or the DOJ website and type in the search, or google DOJ state court judge discrimination. I do have enough to sue and prosecute this judge. What a jerk.

    Comment by bollivar4 — September 19, 2017 @ 1:02 am

  4. I’ve previously complained to DOJ many times and they did nothing. They like us can’t sue judges for damages as judges have Absolute Immunity. However you can make complaint 4 mandamus to order them to follow mandatory not discretionary procedures like disability accommodations.You can also ask for declaratory & injunctive relief under the civil rights act to get order stating they were violating law & ordering them to follow law. That’s what I’m doing.
    Linda

    Comment by Linda Shelton — September 19, 2017 @ 9:23 pm

  5. Hi Linda,
    This is the procedure poster of my foreclosure case. The court revered itself and granted my motion to vacate judgment of foreclosure on 12/16/2017. My prayer for relief is as follows: Dismiss the foreclosure case. Void the mortgage based on coercion. On 01/03/2017, the court instructed me to hire a lawyer in order to keep his order vacating the judgment of foreclosure. The court in a later status hearing encouraged me to file for appointment of counsel and proceed in forma paupers which the judge granted. In short, the judge realized that all local lawyers have been bought up by Fannie Mae and have conflict of interest. This is the reason no one in Lee or Whiteside counties can hire a lawyer for foreclosures. Lee county is “Red” listed by the Illinois Hardest Hit Program with a total population of just over 35,000 as having one of the highest rate of foreclosures.

    I have already posted a motion for summary judgement above.

    I did try Prairie State Legal, but they have refused to represent me even though I am clearly qualified.

    Last months status hearing the judge again reversed himself again and ordered me to hire a lawyer which is a clear denial of Tennessee v. Lane, 541 US 509 ruling.
    I have tried in vain to hire a lawyer in Rockford even though I would have to take out a loan.

    I was adjudicated disabled by the Social Security Administration as of August of 2013.
    I believe an mandamus is my only option as the court has no option to modify his order vacating the judgment of foreclosure as the (30) day time limit I outlined above has come and gone.

    I have tried to pull up you mandamus without success. Is it possible for you to post it? Thanks

    Comment by bollivar4 — October 11, 2017 @ 12:25 pm


  6. https://polldaddy.com/js/rating/rating.jsAmendment: i was just able to download you mandamus. My internet is running very slow today.

    Comment by bollivar4 — October 11, 2017 @ 12:28 pm


  7. https://polldaddy.com/js/rating/rating.jsRule 381. Original Actions in the Supreme Court Pursuant to Article VI, Section 4(a), of the Constitution
    (a) Motion for Leave to File; Only Issues of Law Considered. Proceedings in the supreme court in original actions in cases relating to revenue, mandamus, prohibition, or habeas corpus, and as may be necessary to the complete determination of any case on review, shall be instituted by filing a motion, supported by explanatory suggestions, for leave to file a complaint seeking appropriate relief. Only issues of law will be considered. The proposed complaint shall be sworn to and shall contain or have attached to it the lower court records or other pertinent material that will fully present the issues of law. If the motion is filed when the court is not in session and the case arises from the second, third, fourth, or fifth judicial district, the movant shall file the original and eight copies with the clerk in Springfield. If the case arises from the first judicial district (Cook County), the movant shall file the original motion and eight copies with the clerk in the Chicago satellite office.
    (b) Service of Process. TheA copy of the motion, together with the proposed complaint, shall be served upon the other party or parties, including the nominal party or parties, and proof of service shall be filed at the time the motion is filed.
    (c) Judge a Nominal Party. In an original action to review a judge’s judicial act the judge is a nominal party, only, in the proceeding, and need not respond to the motion or complaint unless instructed to do so by the court. The judge’s failure to do so will not admit any allegation. Counsel for the prevailing party may file any appropriate documentspapers for that party but shall not file any documentpaper in the name of the judge.
    (d) Objections to Motion. The respondent shall have 7 days after personal, or e-mail or facsimile service of the motion, or 14 days after mailing of the motion if service is by mail, or 14 days after delivery to a third-party commercial carrier if service is by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier, or within such further time as the court or a judge thereof may allow to file any objections to the motion, and service shall be made upon the movant and proof of service filed with the clerk of the court. Oral argument on the motion shall be permitted as the court may allow.
    (e) Briefs. If the motion is allowed, briefs conforming to the requirements of Rules 341 through 344 shall be filed in support of the pleadings, within the time fixed by the court on motion of any party or on its own motion. On notice to the court and the other party or parties, the plaintiff or defendant may allow his or her the original filing papers to stand as his or her the brief without order of court.

    Comment by bollivar4 — October 11, 2017 @ 3:43 pm

  8. Mandamus in Supreme Court of IL is a last resort and a lot of case law limits its scope and time frame. It is not all common sense nor intuitive. Mandamus can be filed also in local court in County or in Federal Dist. Court.

    Comment by Linda Shelton — October 12, 2017 @ 12:33 am

  9. A 1401 petition is like a motion to reconsider but is for greater than 30 days past judgement. This os also an option.

    Comment by Linda Shelton — October 12, 2017 @ 12:55 am

  10. You can’t sue a judge for damages unless he acts in an administrative capacity as judges have absolute immunity against damages for judicial acts. You can sue them for mandamus relief to force them to do a mandatory duty or for declaratory and injuctive relief under the federal civil rights act section 1983. See my post in http://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com and link in mandamus post for complaint for example.

    Comment by Linda Shelton — October 12, 2017 @ 1:01 am

  11. Tell me more about this coercion & why terms of mortgage are bad and you couldn’t pay it or come to agreement with loan company to modify loan.

    Comment by Linda Shelton — October 12, 2017 @ 1:10 am

  12. Bolivar4 Please send me your email address at picepil@aol.com so I can send you some references, authorities and case law.

    Comment by Linda Shelton — October 12, 2017 @ 1:21 am

  13. Motion for supervisory order from Illinois Supreme Court is another option.

    Comment by Linda Shelton — October 12, 2017 @ 1:24 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: