context: Specifically, Fayemi alleges that Pucinski acted with "deliberate indifference in not allowing Plaintiff to seek redress in the state court because she was the one to file the claim herself and she refused to" file that claim. (Pl.'s Compl., Statement of Claim at P 3.) Further, while in general he refers to the "clerk" as the person he spoke with in conjunction with obtaining his refunded bail money, he does refer to the clerk as a "she" in his prayer for relief: "Plaintiff wants the defendant to pay him ... for the money she carelessly gave away without Plaintiffs authorization.... " (Pl.'s Cpmpl., Relief at P 1.) Thus, the court finds that Fayemi has sufficiently pleaded a SS 1983 claim against Pucinski in her individual capacity.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 927 F.Supp. 1087, 1087-88
citation_a.parenthetical: finding that plaintiff properly pleaded an individual-capacity claim by alleging that defendant, Pucinski, knew for the problems but did nothing
citation_a.sentence: See McMurry, 927 F.Supp. at 1087-88 (finding that plaintiff properly pleaded an individual-capacity claim by alleging that defendant, Pucinski, knew for the problems but did nothing); Carroll v. Pucinski, No. 91 C 3210, 1992 WL 59126, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 16, 1992) (finding that Pucinski’s official position as Clerk is sufficient to permit an inference of personal involvement until such time as she comes forward and identifies those persons who failed to process plaintiffs papers).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 2000 WL 574682, at *4
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that plaintiff did not properly plead an individual-capacity claim because she did not allege that defendant Pucinski entered the incorrect information herself
citation_b.sentence: Cf. Farrar, 2000 WL 574682, at *4 (holding that plaintiff did not properly plead an individual-capacity claim because she did not allege that defendant Pucinski entered the incorrect information herself).