Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: A closer look at that Simon poll and what it bodes for the future
Next Post: Griffin still state’s richest person
Posted in:
* Not unexpected, but ouch…
A man who launched an ill-fated primary election challenge of Michael J. Madigan, arguably the most powerful politician in Illinois, has again lost to the Speaker of the State House of Representatives, after a federal judge tossed out his lawsuit alleging Madigan and his political allies violated his constitutional rights by conspiring to smear his name and undercut his campaign.
On March 14, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly sided with Madigan and other defendants accused in the lawsuit, saying plaintiff Jason Gonzales presented no evidence that Madigan and his allies used the power of the state or their positions to violate any of Gonzales’ rights.
“Gonzales argues … that, due to Madigan’s lengthy service in the Illinois House of Representatives, his ‘authority as a private person and the authority he derives from his position are indistinguishable,’” Kennelly wrote. “Gonzales cites no case law to support this proposition. The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly stated that ‘[t]he mere assertion that one is a state officer does not necessarily mean that one acts under color of state law.’
“Gonzales must allege facts permitting a plausible inference that Madigan engaged in conduct made possible by his official authority under state law that contributed to the alleged constitutional violations. Gonzales has not done so in his complaint in its current form.”
Kennelly dismissed the complaint without prejudice, for now, giving Gonzales until March 29 to refile a lawsuit “that contains at least one viable claim.”
Go read the whole thing. Brutal.
*** UPDATE *** Um, OK. But how about just coming up with “one” fact?…
Gonzalez v. Madigan amended complaint will provide more facts about Illegal activity by Speaker- stay tuned
— Tony Peraica (@tonyperaica) March 19, 2017
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 9:12 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: A closer look at that Simon poll and what it bodes for the future
Next Post: Griffin still state’s richest person
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
That’s judicial speak for “now go and get your shine box.”
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 9:17 am
Wordslinger, You’re a pistol, you’re really funny. You’re really funny.
Comment by bigtwich Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 9:21 am
No surprise here… I expected this from the moment that I read that Tony Peraica is his attorney.
Comment by Mahna Anon Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 9:22 am
Madigan and the U.S. District Judges he controls….
Comment by Dee Lay Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 9:24 am
Did IPI finance the lawsuit?
Comment by PublicServant Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 9:35 am
favorite piece of the article is the list of attorneys. Michael Kreloff. oh my.
also, the essence of the suit is that one candidate cannot fight against another. Gonzales information getting out there is a whole other thing and could be worth pursuing by someone, but putting up opponents, negative campaigning, that’s standard stuff. The Gonzales attempt does remind me of St. Patrick Fitzgerald looking to criminalize things political.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 9:35 am
What ever happened to Drury’s suit against his opponent? He was in danger of being SLAPPed if I recall correctly.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 9:42 am
I sure hope Tony Peraica took that one out of spite. I can’t imagine he got paid for that work. IF he ends up avoiding sanctions it will be a big win.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 9:55 am
It will be interesting to see who Rauner handpicks to run against Madigan next time.
Comment by The Dude Abides Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 10:17 am
===I sure hope Tony Peraica took that one out of spite. I can’t imagine he got paid for that work. IF he ends up avoiding sanctions it will be a big win.===
Wouldn’t be the first time that Peraica was sanctioned by a Federal Judge.
Comment by Boone's is back Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 10:29 am
The judge found no legal substance to chew on.
Does Gonzo have any substance at all? Or is he a performance artist like Tony P?
Comment by walker Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 10:35 am
==- Amalia - Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 9:35 am:
favorite piece of the article is the list of attorneys. Michael Kreloff. oh my.==
The best part is they missed a few lawyers who are on record with the court and in the briefs. It was the full cast against Peraica.
Comment by lilditty Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 12:13 pm
I thought every plaintiff’s attorney knew Section 1983 forwards and backwards. Maybe Peraica only knows it backwards.
Comment by Whatever Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 3:10 pm
How can you provide “more” facts about illegal activity if you haven’t produced even one fact? Who is this guy
Comment by dude Monday, Mar 20, 17 @ 4:52 pm