Many of readers following these Posts requested the Interstate Brands Corporation/Wonderbread Complaint and a copy of the Judges Order be posted.

 Wonder bread is so Racist towards their employees they hired Big Gun Attorney's a Law Professor to take on an unlicensed attorney when none of that worked, they called on the Judge to DISMISS the COMPLAINT.

The Complainant many times bellowed "O Lord My God is there any "Help for W's Son? to no avail his pleas for help fell on Deaf Ears!

On the beginning page of each court document was the ALL SEEING EYE it did not scan but in place of the ALL SEEING EYE that is noticed behind all one dollar bills, I will type it in. 
                                                                   ALL SEEING EYE
~-.. ~~ J;.'-.:;..                
~1/l\\~
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joe Louis Lawrence
Et. Al.
Plaintiffs
Thomas Walker
Duane Alford
Atoine Jointer
Greg McCullough
Shawn McCullough
Larry Golden
Yardley Johnson
Milton Williams
Roy Morgan
Dandrea Lake
Roy Beasley
Jeff Armstrong
Stephen Thomas
Willi<un Scott
John Brown
Alias John Doe
-VSCIVIL
ACTIONNP a c a 7 54
Honorable
·,i .......
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MASON
lv"llCHAt::i. ;.,f L=~JG ">ii\.
Cl:ERK.!_ JJ .. :3 .. L:s·rn:~.=-i ~;UUI-i
Interstate Brands Corporation
Wonder Bread
Judge Presiding
Defendant. DEMAND: $350 MILLION DOLLARS
Complaint of
Civil Rights Violations
Employment Discrimination
Disparate Treatment
COUNT I
Now comes plaintiffs, Attorney Pro Se your complainants United states citizens
states the following.
1. This is a class action for employment discrimination/Civil Rights Violations.
2. That said plaintiffs are foregoing members in a class action lawsuit in this
cause.
3. That lead plaintiff in the cause is Joe Louis Lawrence ofP.O. Box 490075,
Chicago, IL 60649.
4. That Defendant is Interstate Brands Corporation Wonder Bread, who resides at
12 East Armour Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64111, Phone Number, is (816) 502-
4210.
5. In that defendant discriminated against the plaintiff on or about the months of
2002 and up until the day of this filing and continues to invoke disparate
treatment at plaintiffs.
6. Said lead plaintiff had filed a charge against the defendants asserting the acts of
discrimination indicated in this complaint with the follow government agency.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on about
January 15, 2003
(A) Hereto attached a copy of said charge.
It is the policy of both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Illinois
Department of Human Rights to cross-file with other agencies all charges received. The
plaintiff has no reason to believe that this policy was not followed in this case.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a Notice
Right to Sue, which was received by the lead plaintiff May 5, 2003; a copy of said Notice
is hereto attached to complaint.
7. The defendants discriminated against the plaintiffs because of the plaintiffs
a. Color (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981)
b. Race (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ofl964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981).
8. The plaintiffs are suing the defendants A corporation for discrimination on the
basis of race, color or national origin (42 U.S.C. 1981).
9. Jurisdiction over the statutory violation alleged is conferred as follows: over Title
vn claims by u.s.c.i 1331, 28 u.s.c. i 1343 (a) (3), and 42 u.s.c.i 2000e-5 (F)
(3); over 42 U.S.C.i 1981 and i 1983 by 42 U.S.C.i 1988; over the A.D.E.A. by 42
usci 12111.
COUNT II
1. That defendants discriminated against the plaintiff, Joe Louis Lawrence when it
applied to receiving Workman's Compensation.
2. Plaintiff, Joe Louis Lawrence sustained a work-related injury 8-17-02,
Defendant Don Orsini falsified said documents relating to the injury stated that said
injury had to be a pre-eXisting injury. ·
3. Defendant stated that if plaintiff could not work at I 00%, he could not report to
work and that there were no light duty positions available for him.
4. September II, 2002 plaintiff received a letter from defendant's insurance carrier
that said injury was not work-related denying him any and all medical attention and
workman's Compensation.
5. Defendants' hired some men in three different vehicles to stalk said plaintiff
September 24-Sept 27, 2002, they sat in front of the residence all night, they chased the
defendant trying to run him down with their large SUV's and vans so as to prevent him
from pursuing a claim against them.
6. Plaintiffs wife screamed when she noticed unknown Caucasian defendant tried
to rear end the plaintiff from behind, he hacked up and sped around the comer.
7. Police was immediately dispatched to the scene where one of the defendant
drivers tried to get away from the police, the men stated they worked for the insurance
company of the defendant. Police report was filed.
8. That defendant had a Caucasian driver, Don Liuigni, to sustain a work-related
injury to his hand where it was in a bandage, said driver never missed a day of work, and
they provided him help all month.
9. That defendants covered up the incident of said injury promoted this unqualified
driver to manager.
10. That defendant had another Caucasian driver, Dennis Carlson to sustain a
work-related injury and was granted Workman's Compensation.
II. Defendants allowed Caucasian driver, Phil McCallister to take 2 days off
because his hand was swollen Dec. 9, 10, 2002, said attendance record was fulsified to
reflect he was present both days.
In the case St. Mary's Honor Center, eta!., Petitioners V. Melvin Hicks I Civil Rights
383 under McDonnell Douglas scheme applicable to Title VII discriminatory treatment
t :~~,
~~~~~~
Cases Plaintiff must first establish by preponderance of evidence a "Prima Facie" case of
racial discrimination, thus creating presumption that employer unlawfully discriminated
against employee Civil Rights Act of 1964, 703(a) (1), 42 I.S.C.A. 2000e- 2(a) (1 ).
12. That defendants having full cognizance of their unlawful actions tried to
cover up their illegal acts by conspiring to falsify plaintiff's atteruiance record by
recording that plaintiff was receiving Workman's Compensation up until week ending
December 7, 2002.
Conspirators to be guilty of offense need not have entered into conspiracy at same
time or have taken part in all of its actions. People V Harmison, 1985,9111 Dec 162,
108.
13. That the defendants of Payroll, Human Resources and Management notified
the Unions Benefit department that plaintiff, Joe Louis Lawrence quit.
Requisite mens rea elements of conspiracy are satisfied upon showing of agreement
to commit offense with intent that offense be committed; actus reas element is
satisfied of act in furtherance ofagreement. People V. Mordick, 1981, so 111, Dec.
63, 94.
14. That because of the above illegal unlawful acts defendant forced the lead
plaintiff to apply and receive medical and Food Assistance, from Public Aid for his
family.
15. That defendant caused the state to incur all surgery and medical costs of
plaintiffs work-related injury, whereby plaintiffs shoulder diagnosis was rotator tear,
partial nerve damage MRI revealed Herniated Disc in neck.
16. That defendant caused humiliation to plaintiff, John Doe, driver who needed
time off because of Hemorrhoids, they made him pull his pants down to show he had
bloody hemorrhoids before granting him the next day off.
COUNT ill
1. Defendants intimidated an African Those defendants forced and assign all
inner city routes to African American drivers.
2. That said plaintiffs if they have less than one year of service are forced to work
16-17 hours a day and received no overtime.
3. That said defendant's assigns suburban routes to all Caucasian drivers and
provide them assistance.
4. That said defendant's pays overtime to plaintiffs with one year of service
overtime after 45 hours in a week not 40 hours.
,1! -.. -.. A - _, .::....
~1/l\\~
5. Defendants placed unqt.ialified Caucasians drivers in high paying routes
when said routes were open.
6. Defendants placed an unqualified Caucasian in management, Don Liuign; to
cover up light duty for his work related injury
7. When plaintiffi; earn routes with respect to the bidding process, defendants
reduce the dollar value of the routes.
8. That said defendants intimidated and threatened certain African Americans ·
daily, in that defendants would scratch out their starting times on the time cards so as to
prevent them from receiving overtime.
9. When plaintiffi; earn routes with respect to the biding process, defendants
intimidate, threaten and verbally assault plaintiffi; when working overtime hours.
10. When plaintiffs earn routes with respect to the biding process, defendants
maliciously write up plaintiffi;, suspend and terminate plaintiffs so as to provide an
opening for white drivers.
11. Said defendants the supervisors cover for the Caucasian drivers and don't
report various incidents to upper level management.
12. Plaintiff Shawn McCullough was written up for stale out of code bread on his
route by defendants.
13. Defendant allowed Ron Littland, Caucasian to have over 100 pieces of stale
out of code breads in one store it was reported to Don Orsini, Management- No action
taken against driver.
14. Defendant allowed Caucasian Besnick Kacija to have over 300 pieces of stale
out of code bread left on the route, this matter was reported to Don Orsini- No action
was taken against this driver.
15. Plaintiff Antoine Jointer was written up 4-26-02 for 4 pkg. Of stale out of
code bread, written up again 12-29-02 for 4 pieces of stale out of code bread, by the
defendants and has been suspended.
16. Plaintiff Thomas Walker was suspended for having out of code bread in a
store, October 1989, he was written up again 10-31-02 for 7 pieces ofolit of code bread
by the defendant. ·
17. Defendants do not suspend, write up or terminate Caucas1an for out of code
bread left in the store, nor are they suspended for poor job perfortrlll':dce.
18. Defendants do not write up Caucasians for poor job performance when they
call and state they will not report to work.
19. Defendants alter the attendance sheet to reflect said Caucasians are at work
when they are not.
Said actions are illegal and unlawful, Byrd V. Roadway Express, 687 F. 2d 85, 87 n.
3, 29 FEP 1588 (5'h Cir 1982) (the purpose ofthe Prima Facie showing is to identify
actions taken by the employer from which discrimination can be inferred);
20. Plaintiff female was robbed on route 4088, requested help from defendant,
did not receive any help was terminated, because she was too slow, poor job
performance.
21. Plaintiffs, John Brown, Roy Beasley, William Scott, Duane Alford, and
Yardley all were denied guarantee salary when defendants reduced the dollar value of
their routes.
22. Defendant provided help to a Caucasian driver who was not robbed and did
not discharge him.
23. Defendant allowed a Caucasian driver, Richard Burjas, to steal $600.00 he
was never suspended, written up or discharged. Same driver transferred to Vitner's stole
over ten thousand dollars, they pressed charges.
24. Defendant terminated plaintiff, Larry Golden because of suspicion of theft.
Halsell V. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 683 F2d 285, 289, 29, FEP 1185 (S'h Cir. 1982)
(to establish a Prima Facie case, the plaintiff must produce evidence supporting an
inference of discrimination).
25. Plaintiffs overheard defendants Tony Izzo and Don Orsini state they were
tired ofDondrea Lake, Tony said "fire the "Bitch"!
26. Defendants intimidated an American female with numerous write-ups for
poor performance, when she requested help on her route.
27. Defendants terminated said female for poor job performance.
28. Defendants had three Caucasian drivers to perform said route, two men on the
truck, the other drove a van.
29. When plaintiffs remove out of code bread from their stores, defendants would
have someone in management from another location go into the front of the store with
molded out of code bread and place it on the shelf.
30. Said defendant supervisor would enter the store from the rear remove the
molded bread from the specified location and write up said plaintiffs.
1. That defendants Attorney, Leonard Singer conspired and constructed a
document letter that further violated plaintiffs, Alan Tabor, Antoine Jointer and Shawn
McCullough Civil Rights.
2. That said attorney was cognizant that various defendants committed unlawful
discrimination through Jerry Kemp, General Manager.
3. That said defendant unlawfully wrote plaintiffs up, suspended them from
employment for out of code products held in stores.
4. That said plaintiffs were forced to sign the letter of understanding constructed
as follows: "This agreement releases the Company and the Union from pending or future
grievances, arbitrations, charges, or lawsuits relating to the above incident. It shall also
be agreed between the Company and officials of Teamsters, Local 734, that Mr.
McCullough, Mr. Tabor, Mr. Jointer return to work establishes no precedent for past or
future cases of other employee".
5. Plaintiffs each received the same instrument worded in the same fushion where
they had to sign or lose their employment status with the Company.
6. Defendants never under any circumstances drafted an unlawful document for
any Caucasian employees (drivers).
In a suit under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant
acted willfully or with specific intent to deprive the plaintiff of a Federal Right
Monroe V. Pape, 365 US 167, SLEd, 2d 492, 81 S Ct 473. Good Faith is no defense
to a violation of the status, United States ex. ReL Jones V. Rundle (DCPA) 358F
Supp 939. Instead, the ordinary rules applies that makes a man responsible for the
natural consequences of his actions Whirl V. Kern (CAS Tex) 407 F 2d 781, Cert
den 396 US 901, 90 s Ct 210.
7. Bob Brooks Vice President ofLocal734 was cognizant that defendants, Matt
Meadamus, were violating the plaintiff Civil Rights, reluctantly went alone with the
process in that he signed his name but stated "Don't totally agree on Alan Tabor's letter
of understanding, but signed the other letters without conscious.
Some courts hold that negligent conduct, inappropriate circumstances, will support
an action under 42 USCS 1983 Puckett V. Cox (CA 6 Tenn.) 456 F2d 233.
An action order under 42 uses 1983 may be based on negligence when it leads to a
deprivation of Rights. McCray V. Maryland (CA 4 Md.) 456 F 2d 1.
8. Defendants has exercised unlawful discrimatory tactics at all African
Americans by terminating and suspending Alan Tabor from employment, so as to prevent
and oppress continuously plaintiffs in a unlawful discriminatory manner, by making an
example ofhim.
9. Defendants unlawfully reprimanded, suspended and terminated Alan Tabor for
removing out of code bread from a store, Caucasian; Ron Littland did not remove (Cub
Foods and Wal Mart).
J~J-.:·---.::~:. ..
~1/l\\~
10. Defendants allowed Ron Littland to leave molded bread in said stores did not
suspend or terminate his employment status.
11. Defendants has demonstrated and satisfied the preponderant of evidence
requirement that disparate treatment and Mephisto to Phelian unlawful; discrilflination is
active at Interstate Brands Corporation.
12. The filets supporting the plaintiffs claim of discrimination are as follows,
hereto attached, September 16, letter to Jerry Kemp detailing racial discrimination,
November 23, 2002 letter to Mike Stewart, Manager of Human Resources in Kansas City
detailing racial discrimination, February 23, letter to CEO, Elsesser detailing racism,
threats, Ku Klux Klan racial affiliations, Feb 27, 2003 letter to CEO Elsesser, detailing
racism and "so as to demonstrate a point of Racial Supremacy in that no Judge, no Union
no federal or state laws will bring them into compliance with "Niggers" and has
exhausted various above the law tactics in maintaining this claim!" Said letter validates
the veracity that racial terrorist groups operating LB. C., Apri113, 2003 letter to Vanessa
L. Smith, Attorney, detailing how she used inveigle techniques in conspiring with the
defendants to ascertain the identities of all African Americans complaining of racism.
An admission to the above by defendant Jerry Kemp Apri125, 2003
A response by the plaintiff April27, 2003, all documents hereto attached.
Section 1983 of USCS contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the
unconstitutional application of a law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell V.
Saunders (CA 5 FIA) 372 F 2d 573, especially ifthe conspiracy was actually carried
into effect, where can action is for a conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights under
42USCS 1985 (3), or for the deprivation of such rights under 42 USCS 1983, if the
conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the gist of the
action may be treated as one for the deprivation of rights under 42 uses 1983
Lewis V. Brautigam (CAS F1A) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Air 2d 505.
13. Defendants legally acknowledged disparate treatment at said plaintiffs
directly where several letters were sent and signed for and never rebutted.
John W. Strong, McCormick on evidence? 185, at 777-78 ( 41
h ed. 1992) defining
"direct" and "circumstantial" evidence).
lfthe plaintiff Prima Facie case is supported by a preponderance of the evidence- it
must find the existence ofthe presumed fact of unlawful discrimination and must,
therefore, render a verdict for the plaintiff. See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs
V. Burdine, 450 U.S 248, 254, and n. 7, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1094, and n. 7, 67 LEd. 2d
207 (1981); F. James &d, Civil Procedure~ 7.9, p.327 (3d ed. 1985); lD. Louisell &
C.Mueller, Federal Evidence~ 70, pp. 568-569 ..
The plaintiff demands that this case be tried by a jury.
Wherefore, the plaintiffs request that this court grant the following relief to the plaintiff.
' I >:f
Issue a rule to show cause to all attorneys involved in this conspirator matter why they
should not be disbarred and imprisoned instanter, assign special prosecutors and Field
agents to Eradicate Racial Terrorist Corruption from all levels of management at LB. C.
with a Mandamus statute (28 USC 136) confers original jurisdiction on Federal
District Courts of actions in the nature of Mandamus to compel an officer or
employee ofthe United States or any agency thereof" TO PERFORM A DUTY
OWED TO THE PLAINTIFF" Mandamus does not issue to compel performance of
a duty which the defendant does not owe to the plaintiff. 1ST CIRCUIT ---DAVIS
ASSOCIATES, INC. V. SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HOUSING & URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (1974, CA 1 Nil) 498 F2d 385. CARMAN V. RICHARDSON
(1973. DC VI) 357 F SUPP 1148.
The statute makes Mandamus available to enforce ministerial duties. 2"d
CIRCUIT-COREY V. LOCAL BOARD NO. 2 (1969. DC CONN) 297 F
COALITION FOR UNITED COMMUNITY ACTION V. ROMNEY (1970. ND
ILL) 316 F SUPP 742. Mandamus is available to require the exercise of discretion,
PENNSYLVANIA Y SHEPPARD V. NATIONAL ASSOC. OF FLOOD
INSURERS (1975. CA3 PA) 520 F2d 11, MCQUEARY V. LAIRD (971. CA 10
COLO) 449 F2d 608, it has been held that Mandamus is available to correct an
abuse of discretion, 1'' CIRCUIT-- MCMAHON V. CALIFANO (1979, DC MASS)
476 F SUPP 978 (NOTING THAT THE APPliCABLE STATUTE. ITS
LEGISLATURE HISTORY, THE REGULATION PROMULGATED
THEREUNDER, AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT AID MUST BE CONSIDERED
IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF A GOVERNMENTS OFFICER'S
DISCRETION AND WHETHER THAT DISCRETION HAS BEEN ABUSED).
Mandamus has been held available to enforce constitutional duties, 1'' CIRCUITy
ARGUS V. CHARDON (1975, DC PUERTO RICO) 405 F SUPP 1348, 2"d
CIRCUIT-DAVIS V. UNITED STATES DEPT. OF HEALTH, EDUCATION
& WELFARE (1976, SD. NY) 416 F SUPP 448.
Some courts have declared that relief is not available under 28 uses 1361 unless
the plaintiff has a clear right to the duty to perform the act in question. I ST
CIRCUIT-- CASWELL V. CALIFANO (1977, DC ME) 435 F SUPP 127, AFFD
(CAl ME) 583 F2d 9. OTHER COURTS HAVE SAID THAT MANDAMUS WilL
NOT BE DENIED BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OR NOVELTY OF THE
ISSUES REQUIRED TO BE RESOLVED, WlllTE V. MATTHEWS (1976, DC SD)
9~ F SUPP 882, at least insofar as constitional questions are involved. PLATO V.
~J,JUDE BUSH (1975, DC MD) 397 F SUPP 1295.
Under 28 USCS 1361, FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS have original jurisdiction of
any action in the nature of Mandamus to compel "an officer or employee ofthe
United states or any agency thereof" to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
a~ --..- ~~'
~~~~~~
The relief Mandamus although legal ih nature, it's issuance is dependent largely upon
judicial discretion, DC CIRCUIT---- NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION V.
UNITED STATES (1980) 200 APP DC 53,626 F2d 917, lOTH CIRCUIT----PRAIRE
BANDF OF POTTAWTOMIE TRIBE OF INDIANS V. UDALL (1966, CA 10 KAN)
355 F2d 364. CERT DEN 385 US 831, 17 Ed 2d 67, 87 S CT 70.
Appropriate the necessary injunctions seizing all records prohibiting the defendants from
destroying documents, seize all assets ofiBC stock so as to prevent them from illegally
transferring funds, issue a rule to show cause for any individual fulsifYjng or making ·
petjured statements to this court by way of imprisonment, punitive damages, including
reasonable attorney fees and expert witness fees.
Grant any such other relief this court may deem appropriate.
Joe Louis Lawrence
Et. AI.
Attorney Pro Se
P.O. Box 490075
Chicago, IL 60649
312-409-7671
Ordor l'orm (0112005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
CASE NUMBER
CASE
TITLE
Matthew F. Kennelly
07 c 1191
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Jud~~::e
DATE
Lawrence vs. IBC I Wonderbread, et al.
5121/2007
The·Court grants plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [docket no. 4] because it appears that
plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee. For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel and all other motions are terminated as moot
[docket nos. 5 & 6]. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this action.
• [For further details see text below.]
STATEMENT
Docketing to mail notices .
*Mail AO 450 fonn.
Prose plaintiff Joe Louis Lawrence has sued Interstate Brands Corp. I Wonderbread; the Chicago Transit
Authority (CTA); the law firm of Wiener & McAuliffe; the Cook County State's Attorney; and (it appears)
the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), alleging that they discriminated and
conspired against him. Mr. Lawrence has petitioned for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without
paying the normal filing fee, and for that reason, the Court reviews his complaint to determine if it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
The gist of Mr. Lawrence's complaint is somewhat difficult to make out, but as best as the Court can
determine, he alleges the following. In Count 1, Mr. Lawrence says that he was the "lead plaintiff' in a class
action employment discrimination case in this District against IBC I Wonderbread, which was dismissed on
appeal for want of prosecution. See Lawrence v. Interstate Brands Corp., District Court Case No. 03 C 3754,
Order of Aug. 8, 2003 (dismissing case) & Seventh Circuit Case No. 03-3359 (dismissing appeal). He alleges
that IBC enlisted lawyers, as well as judges, to perpetrate a conspiracy against him.
In Count 2, Mr. Lawrence alleges that IBC's attorneys and attorneys with the Cook County State's Attorney's
Office and the Chicago Transit Authority conspired with a Chicago police officer. Mr. Lawrence appears to
allege that the officer had been impregnated by her biological farther but instead falsely accused him and
caused false documents to be submitted in court.
In Count 3, Mr. Lawrence alleges that a Cook County Assistant State's Attorney, with the assistance of IBC's
attorneys, orchestrated the falsification of child support papers filed in court, and that another attorney
participated in the same alleged conspiracy.
07C 1191 Lawrence vs. IBC I Wonderbread, eta!. Page I of 2
/~~----------------------~S~T~A~TE~M~E~NT~-----------------------1
In Count 4, Mr. Lawrence appears to allege that investigating attorneys for the ARDC ignored the evidence he
had submitted against the previously-mentioned lawyers.
Count 5 appears to be a catch-all claim against the defendants, accusing them of conspiring against hiJU.
Among other things, Mr. Lawrence appears to allege that the defendants intimidated Teamsters Union and
Amalgamated Transit Union officials from reinstating him, and that as a result he is on public aid.
Counts I, 2, and 3 are legally deficient, as they appear to constitute collateral attacks on judgments entered by
other courts. Mr. Lawrence has alleged no proper basis upon which this Court may, in effect, reconsider
judgments entered by other courts, on grounds he appears to have argued and lost in those courts.
Count 4 is likewise legally deficient. It appears from the allegations in this Count that Mr. Lawrence
submitted a complaint to the ARDC but that the ARDC took no action. Mr. Lawrence, however, has no
legally enforceable right to any particular outcome on his ARDC complaint and cannot sue the ARDC based
on its failure to take action.
Count 5, as indicated earlier, largely appears to be a catch-all claim combining the allegations of Counts I
through 4. Mr. Lawrence also appears to allege, however, that one or more of the defendants- it is not clear
who- intimidated a labor union into failing to reinstate him as aCTA employee. The documents attached to
Mr. Lawrence's complaint and his motion for appointment of counsel, however, reflect that his tewination
from the CT A occurred long ago, outside the statute of limitations that governs employment discrimination
actions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as 42 U .S.C. § 1981.
For these reasons, the Court dismisses this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
07Cll91 Lawrence vs. IBC I Wonderbread, et al. Page 2 of 7