With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “Plaintiff wants the defendant to pay him ... for the money she carelessly gave away without Plaintiffs authorization.... ” (Pl.’s Cpmpl., Relief at ¶ 1.) Thus, the court finds that Fayemi has sufficiently pleaded a § 1983 claim against Pucinski in her individual capacity. 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). Cf. Farrar, 2000 WL 574682, at *4 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court denies Pucinski’s

A: holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government
B: holding that even presuming that facts alleged in petition were true plaintiff did not allege a claim within the scope of the takings clause because it did not plead sufficient intent
C: holding that plaintiff did not properly plead an individualcapacity claim because she did not allege that defendant pucinski entered the incorrect information herself
D: holding that to rebut presumption plaintiff need only allege specific facts not plead evidence
C.