State of Illinois v. Grubbs
| State of Illinois |
| Matthew Grubbs |
| 1:2025cv01349 |
| August 20, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Ronald L Hanna |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal- Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 14, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 JUDGMENT entered. (KLC) |
TEXT ORDER: On September 17, 2025, the Court entered a show cause order as to why this matter should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction by October 2, 2025. The Court warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action. To date, nothing has been filed. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case. Entered by District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 10/09/2025. (BR)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Show Cause Response due by 10/2/2025, pursuant to 9/17/25 Text Order. (KLC) |
|
TEXT ORDER: The Court has an independent duty to satisfy itself that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists in any case, before proceeding to its merits. See Smith v. American General Life and Accident Ins. Co., Inc., 337 F.3d 888, 892 (7th Cir. 2003). Defendant, in its #1 Notice of Removal does not adequately allege that jurisdiction exists in this matter. Defendant does not raise a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, nor federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. Moreover, it appears that Defendant's state law case is, in fact, "a criminal proceeding." (Doc. 1 at 14); see FreeEats.com, Inc. v. Indiana, 502 F.3d 590, 595 (7th Cir. 2007) (Younger abstention "requires federal courts to abstain from taking jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims that involve or call into question ongoing state proceedings" (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971)). As it stands, the allegations made in the #1 Notice of Removal are insufficient to adequately establish jurisdiction. The Court orders Defendant to SHOW CAUSE, in writing, as to why this matter should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In responding, Defendant is granted leave to file an affidavit with adequate jurisdictional and venue allegations. Defendant's affidavit is due on or by October 2, 2025. Failure to comply with his Order will result in dismissal of this action. Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L Hanna on 9/17/2025. (NJR)
|
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Woodford County Circuit Court, case number 2023CM72 ( Filing fee $ 405 ), filed by Matthew Grubbs. (KLC) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: State of Illinois v. Grubbs | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Matthew Grubbs | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: State of Illinois | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
