Burnside v. Wilkinson et al
| Nicole Renee Burnside |
| Alesia Wilkinson, Raelyn Galassi, Ashley Woods, Michelle Hayes, Alexa Cusac, Stephanie Bieneman, Corey Gulley, Bonita Harris, Betty Clark, Eric Echevarria and Alexa Cusa |
| 1:2025cv01479 |
| December 3, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Ronald L Hanna |
| Michael M Mihm |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 7, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 26 MANDATE of USCA as to #15 Notice of Appeal filed by Nicole Renee Burnside. This cause, docketed on February 9, 2026, is DISMISSED for failure to timely pay the required docketing fee, pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). See written Mandate. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Issuance of Mandate) (KLC) |
| Filing 25 CIRCUIT RULE 3(b) FEE NOTICE of USCA as to #15 Notice of Appeal filed by Nicole Renee Burnside. See written document. (KLC) |
Filing 24
TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff has filed an amended #23 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons stated in its previous orders, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, because the underlying appeal is without merit. See 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3). First, despite being granted multiple opportunities to do so, Plaintiff failed to establish why her claims are not barred by the statute of limitations. See Marshall v. Elgin Police Dep't & Det. Houghton, 2023 WL 4102997, *2 (7th Cir. 2023) ("a district court may dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff pleads facts showing that a defense applies"); see also Collins v. Village of Palatine, 875 F.3d 839, 842 (7th Cir. 2017). Second, despite Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, the Court considered the allegations in Plaintiff's operative amended complaint when dismissing the case. Finally, whether dismissal should have been "with" or "without prejudice" has the same effect because the statute of limitations on her claims have run. See David v. Wal-Mart Stores. Inc., 669 Fed.Appx. 793, 795 (7th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that the appeal is not in good faith. Thus, Plaintiff's #23 Motion is DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to contest this Court's finding, she must renew her petition to proceed in forma pauperis with the Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days after service of this Order. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 03/12/2026. (KLC)
|
| Filing 23 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Nicole Renee Burnside. Responses due by 3/25/2026. (KLC) |
|
Filing 22
ORDER of USCA as to #15 Notice of Appeal filed by Nicole Renee Burnside. IT IS ORDERED that the clerk of this court transfer the motion to the clerk of the district court for a ruling on the motion, along with a copy of this order. The pro se appellant is reminded that if the district court denies the in forma pauperis motion, he/she must refile the motion in this court pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24. See written Order. (KLC)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 3/11/2026, pursuant to 2/26/2026 Text Order. (KLC) |
|
TEXT ORDER denying with leave to renew #21 the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's instant Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis does not identify the issues she will present on appeal, nor does the Plaintiff's #15 Notice of Appeal which consists of a single sentence stating she appeals the final judgment and all prior adverse orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c). By 03/11/2026, Plaintiff may file a renewed Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis in this Court. Celske v. Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating appellant should be given an opportunity to submit a statement of his grounds for appealing so the district judge "can make a responsible assessment of the issue of good faith"). Plaintiff must use the Seventh Circuit's Affidavit and clearly identify the issues she will present on appeal. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Text Order to the Seventh Circuit. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 02/26/2026. (KLC)
|
| Filing 21 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Nicole Renee Burnside. Responses due by 3/10/2026. (KLC) |
|
Filing 20
ORDER of USCA as to #15 Notice of Appeal filed by Nicole Renee Burnside. IT IS ORDERED that the clerk of this court transfer the motion to the clerk of the district court for a ruling on the motion, along with a copy of this order. See written Order. (KLC)
|
|
Filing 19
ORDER of USCA as to #15 Notice of Appeal filed by Nicole Renee Burnside. IT IS ORDERED that proceedings in this appeal are SUSPENDED pending the district court's resolution of the motion to alter or amend. See written Order. (KLC)
|
|
TEXT ORDER: DENYING Plaintiff's #14 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is permissible when the moving party clearly establishes there is newly discovered evidence or a manifest error of law or fact. Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff argues that the Court committed two manifest errors of law when dismissing her Complaint. First, Plaintiff claims that the Court's dismissal did not properly consider the operative complaint. (See D. #14 ). The Court reviewed and carefully considered Plaintiff's Amended Complaint when it entered its Order directing Plaintiff to establish why her case was not barred by the statute of limitations and when it ultimately dismissed Plaintiff's action. The Court also denied Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint on 01/13/2026. (D. #10 ). Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff claims the Court did not consider the allegations in her proposed Second Amended Complaint, that was not the operative complaint before the Court when Judgment was entered. Second, Plaintiff argues that the Court improperly screened her claims under the statute of limitations which she claims, depend[s] on factual development[.] (D. #14 ). However, where a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis which Plaintiff did here a court may dismiss the Complaint at any time for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). However, [w]hen the existence of a valid affirmative defense is so plain from the face of the complaint that the suit can be regarded as frivolous, the district judge need not wait for an answer before dismissing the suit. Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009 (7th Cir. 2002). As the Court has explained, Plaintiff's claims stem from events that were clearly barred under the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 02/11/2026. (KLC)
|
| Filing 18 CIRCUIT RULE 3(b) NOTICE as to #15 Notice of Appeal filed by Nicole Renee Burnside. See written document. (KLC) |
| Filing 17 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re #15 Notice of Appeal filed by Nicole Renee Burnside. USCA Case Number 26-1258. (KLC) Modified on 2/10/2026 to correct filing date. (KLC) |
| Filing 16 Short Record of Appeal Sent to US Court of Appeals re #15 Notice of Appeal. (KLC) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #13 Judgment entered 1/27/2026 by Nicole Renee Burnside. (KLC) |
| Filing 14 MOTION to Alter or Amend Judgment by Plaintiff Nicole Renee Burnside. Responses due by 2/23/2026. (KLC) |
| Filing 13 JUDGMENT entered. (KLC) |
| TEXT ORDER: DENYING Plaintiff's amended #5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP Petition"). 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e) directs courts to screen a complaint when filed together with a request to proceed IFP. Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013). The Court has provided Plaintiff with two opportunities to show cause as to why her case should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. (See D. #7 ; D. #10 ). Plaintiff timely responded but does not cure the deficiencies raised in those Orders. (See D. #9 ; D. #11 ). Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it is clear from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations as set forth in the Court's 12/19/2025 and 1/13/2026 Screening Orders. (See D. #7 ; D. #10 )..; See Bray v. Gary Police Dept. Chief, No. 10-229, 2010 WL 2674531 (N.D. Ind. June 28, 2010) ("[t]he statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, but if a plaintiff 'pleads facts that show his suit is time-barred or otherwise without merit, he has pleaded himself out of court.' ") see also Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009). As a result, this case is DISMISSED and the #5 IFP Petition is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to entered judgment and close this case. Entered Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/27/2026. (KLC) |
|
TEXT ORDER: DENYING Plaintiff's #12 Motion for Recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455. Section 455 requires that a judge disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or [w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. 28 U.S.C. Sections 455(a) and (b)(1). "The standard set forth by this provision is objective and 'asks whether a reasonable person perceives a significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits.' "Atkins v. United States, No. 14-40061, 2018 WL 1796299, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2018) (quoting In re Hatcher, 150 F.3d 631, 637 (7th Cir. 1998) (in turn quoting Hook v. McDade, 89 F.3d 350, 354 (7th Cir. 1996))). When a party seeks recusal based on a court's rulings, she has "a heavy burden" to establish that these rulings make "fair judgment impossible." United States v. Perez, 956 F.3d 970, 975 (7th Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted). "[R]ecusal is required '[o]nly in the rarest circumstances' when a judge displays a 'deep-seated favoritism or antagonism.'" Id. at 976 (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). Here, Plaintiff states that this case is one of several she has filed in this Court arising from the same child welfare and law enforcement system and involving local DCFS employees and related actors. (D. 12, p. 1). She claims that I have similarly dismissed other complaints she has filed on procedural, statute of limitations, and jurisdictional grounds. Id. at p. 2. Notably, Plaintiff does not assert that any of these earlier dismissals make fair judgment impossible but only states that other judges in this district have rendered more favorable rulings in other proceedings. See Perez, 956 F.3d at 975. Plaintiff further alleges that because this case involves many Peoria County Defendants that work closely with the local courts Id. None of these reasons demonstrate a "deep-seated favoritism or antagonism" on the part of this Court. Thus, Plaintiff's #12 Motion is legally insufficient to require recusal under Section 455 and is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/26/2026. (KLC)
|
| Filing 12 MOTION for Recusal of Judge Michael M. Mihm by Plaintiff Nicole Renee Burnside. Responses due by 2/6/2026. (KLC) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Nicole Renee Burnside. (KLC) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 01/13/2026. The Court finds Plaintiff's #9 Response to Show Cause Order fails to establish that her claims are not barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's #8 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. The Court will provide Plaintiff with one final opportunity to address both the statute of limitation and jurisdictional deficiencies set forth in Order. The Court further WARNS Plaintiff that any additional filings in this case must be made in good faith, or she may be subject to sanctions.Failure to file a response to this Order by or before February 3, 2026, will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice. See Order. (KLC)
|
| Filing 9 Response to Order to Show Cause by Nicole Renee Burnside re #7 Order. (KLC) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Nicole Renee Burnside. Responses due by 1/6/2026. (Attachments: #1 Second Amended Complaint) (KLC) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/19/2025. Plaintiff's #4 Amended Complaint must be dismissed for the reasons set forth above. She has through January 8, 2026, in which to show why Judgment consistent with this Order should not be entered. If Plaintiff fails to comply, the Court will dismiss her claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See written Order. (KLC)
|
| Filing 6 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Plaintiff Nicole Burnside. (KLC) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Nicole Renee Burnside. Responses due by 12/22/2025. (KLC) |
| Filing 4 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Stephanie Bieneman, Betty Clark, Alexa Cusac, Eric Echevarria, Raelyn Galassi, Corey Gulley, Bonita Harris, Michelle Hayes, Alesia Wilkinson, Ashley Woods, filed by Nicole Renee Burnside. (KLC) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/05/2025. Plaintiff Renee Burnside filed a Complaint on behalf of herself and her husband, Brian Burnside, and filed a Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Brian Burnside did not sign the Complaint or filed an IFP motion because he is currently incarcerated. (See D. #2 ). District Courts must strike unsigned pleadings. Marcure v. Lynn, 992 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2021); see also Fed. R. Civ. 11(a) (Every pleading must be signed by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.). Accordingly, the #1 Complaint is STRICKEN for failure to comply with Rule 11. See 5A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. Section 1333 (4th ed.) (noting that the Rule 11 signature requirement is not satisfied when a nonlawyer signs a paper on behalf of an unrepresented party[.]). Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's #3 IFP Motion is MOOT. Further, even if it was not, the IFP Motion does not provide the Court with the information necessary to make an IFP determination. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send the Court's IFP form to be used by a person not in custody to Plaintiff Renee Burnside so that she may use that form, if she so choses. In the event Brian Burnside signs the amended complaint, he must also file an IFP application. He may contact the Clerk's office regarding the appropriate forms to use if he is still in custody. Plaintiffs must file a properly signed amended complaint and IFP motion(s), or pay the $405 filing fee, within twenty-one days of this Order. If Plaintiffs fail to timely comply with this Order, this action will be dismissed for want of prosecution. (KLC)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Nicole Renee Burnside. Responses due by 12/17/2025. (KLC) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE - Signature of Incarcerated Plaintiff re #1 Complaint. (KLC) |
| Filing 1 ***STRICKEN PER 12/5/25 TEXT ORDER***COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Brian Armond Burnside, Nicole Renee Burnside. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (KLC) Modified on 12/5/2025 (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
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.
