On September 29, 2005 Judge Riley entered a three-part Court Order, which states, 1) That the guardianship of Julia Johnson over Romeo Ashford is discharged, instanter the estate be closed; 2) That Romeo Ashford is returned to his mother's custody, instanter; and 3) That all pending orders are moot.
I filed this motion because the judge refused to hear the motion when I verbally requested it.
IN CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – PROBATE DIVISION
ESTATE OF ROMEO NANCE-ASHFORD
A Minor
FRED L. NANCE JR., ) Honorable Judge James G. Riley
Petitioner, ) No. 00 P 1267
v. ) Docket: 282
JULIA JOHNSON, ) Page: 259
Respondent. ) Room 1809
NOTICE OF MOTION
TO: Theresa C. Ceko
Loyola University Community Law Center
25 East Pearson, Suite 1400
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Attorney Michael Bergmann
Chicago Volunteer Legal Services Foundation
100 No. LaSalle, Suite 900
Chicago, Illinois 60602
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on ____________, 2005 at _______ am, or as soon
thereafter as petitioner may be heard, he shall appear before the Honorable Judge James
G. Riley presiding in Room 1809 at the Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, and then and there will request the court to hear petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions against Loyola University Community Law Center and Chicago Volunteer Legal Services filed with the Clerk of the Court on June 29, 2005, a copy of which was served upon the parties above on June 29, 2005.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Fred Nance Jr., pro se petitioner certifies that I caused the above Notice and attached motion requesting a hearing to be served upon the parties above by hand-delivering a copy on __________, 2005 to their respective offices.
IN CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – PROBATE DIVISION
ESTATE OF ROMEO NANCE-ASHFORD
A Minor
FRED L. NANCE JR., ) Honorable Judge James G. Riley
Petitioner, ) No. 00 P 1267
v. ) Docket: 282
JULIA JOHNSON, ) Page: 259
Respondent. ) Room 1809
MOTION REQUESTING A HEARING FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST LOYOLA UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER AND CHICAGO VOLUNTEER LEGAL SERVICES FOUNDATION
Now Comes, Fred Nance Jr. Pro se petitioner, requesting this court hold a hearing
on petitioner’s motion for sanctions on Attorney Theresa C. Ceko of Loyola University Community Law Center and Attorney Michael Bergmann of Chicago Volunteer Legal Services Foundation filed with the Clerk of this Court on June 29, 2005. The petitioner submits the following:
The plaintiff is a “pro se” litigant requesting this Honorable Court should liberally construe his motion. Castro v. United States, 290 F.3d 1270 (2003) reports courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category. See, e.g., Raineri v. United States, 233 F.3d 96, 100 (CA1 2000); United States v. Detrich, 940 F.2d 37, 38 (CA2 1991); United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (CA3 1999); Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 528, n. 1 (CA4 1970); United States v. Santora, 711 F.2d 41, 42 (CA5 1983); United States v. McDowell, 305 F.2d 12, 14 (CA6 1962); Henderson v. United States, 264 F.3d 709, 711 (CA7 2001); McIntyre v. United States, 508 F.2d 403, n. 1 (CA8 1975) (per curiam); United States v. Eatinger, 902 F.2d 1383, 1385 (CA9 1990) (per curiam); United States v. Kelly, 235 F.3d 1238, 1242 (CA10 2000); United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 625 (CA11 1990); United States v. Tindle, 522 F.2d 689, 693 (CADC 1975) (per curiam).This Court may do so in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, e.g., id., at 692—693, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10 (1980) (per curiam); Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334 (1963).
1. Petitioner filed a Response to Motion To Terminate Visitation and for Sanctions and Request for Sanctions against Loyola University Community Law Center and Chicago Volunteer Legal Services Foundation on June 29, 2005 with the Clerk of the Court.
2. On September 29, 2005, this court issued an order stating, 1) That the guardianship of Julia Johnson over Romeo Ashford is discharged, instanter the Estate be closed; 2) That Romeo Ashford is returned to his mother’s custody instanter; and 3) That all pending orders are moot.
3. Petitioner requested of the Court that his motion for sanctions filed on June 29, 2005 be heard.
4. The Court did not hold a hearing on the motion for sanctions stated above.
WHEREFORE, the petitioner request this Court review the motion referred to above filed with the Clerk of the Court and hold a hearing instanter.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr.
