Hatchett v. Whitehorn et al
| Michael Hatchett, Jr |
| Elizabeth M Whitehorn and Kevin Duesterhaus |
| 1:2026cv01038 |
| January 27, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Ronald L Hanna |
| Michael M Mihm |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 2, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TEXT ORDER: STRIKING Plaintiff's #6 Motion to Proceed IFP. This case is closed. On February 25, 2026, the Court dismissed this action because Plaintiff failed to either pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") by the ordered deadline. See Text Order on 02/25/2026. The current Motion provides no legitimate basis for the Court to reopen the case. The Clerk is directed to maintain the case as closed. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 03/02/2026. (BMG)
|
| Filing 6 ***STRICKEN*** MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Michael Hatchett, Jr. Responses due by 3/12/2026 (DW) Modified on 3/2/2026 to show stricken(BMG). |
| Filing 5 JUDGMENT entered. (DW) |
|
TEXT ORDER ONLY: On February 2, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") and dismissed his #1 Complaint without prejudice. In doing so, the Court afforded Plaintiff twenty-one days to amend both filings but warned that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice. See Text Order on 02/02/2026. Petitioner has failed to comply with that Order and the time to do so has now passed. Thus, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to pay the filing fee. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 02/25/2026. (DW)
|
| Filing 4 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Kevin Duesterhaus, Elizabeth M Whitehorn, filed by Michael Hatchett, Jr.(DW) Modified on 2/25/2026 to correct scrivener's error. (DW). |
|
TEXT ORDER: After filing his complaint, Plaintiff #2 moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion, explaining that (1) Plaintiff had not demonstrated his inability to pay the filing fee, and (2) Plaintiff's complaint raised jurisdictional concerns. (See Text Order dated Feb. 2, 2026.) Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and afforded him twenty-one days to amend it. Plaintiff now #3 moves for U.S. Marshal service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). That motion is DENIED. Because Plaintiff's complaint has been dismissed, there is no operative complaint in this case and thus nothing to serve. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (explaining that "summons must be served with a copy of the complaint"). Plaintiff may renew his #3 motion at the appropriate time, should he choose to amend his complaint and refile his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Brewer v. Ray,181 F. App'x 563, 566 (7th Cir. 2006) (explaining that U.S. marshal service "is generally reserved for complainants proceeding in forma pauperis"). Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L Hanna on February 4, 2026.(NL)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE by Plaintiff Michael Hatchett, Jr. Responses due by 2/17/2026 (DW) |
|
TEXT ORDER: DENYING Plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis("IFP"). Under the IFP statute, the Court may authorize a plaintiff to proceed IFP if he demonstrates an inability to pay the required costs and fees and states an actionable and non-frivolous claim against a defendant who is not immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) and (e). Here, Plaintiff fails to establish the threshold requirement of indigency as his Motion does not disclose his income or expenses with any specificity. (See D. 2, p. 2). Ability to pay aside, the Complaint raises jurisdictional concerns. Plaintiff seeks to bring a claim under 28 U.S.C. 1983 based on the state's suspension of his driver's license, revocation of his passport, and the garnishment of his wages. It seems the Complaint, at least part, stems from the Plaintiff's state court's child support orders. However, "[f]ederal courts must avoid deciding cases involving 'divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,' Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 308 (2006), for reasons including state courts' superior expertise in these matters. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703-04 (1992)." Huiras v. Cafferty, 2023 WL 6566492, *2 (7th Cir. Oct. 10, 2023). This "domestic relations exception" applies "to both federal-question and diversity suits." Kowalski v. Boliker, 893 F.3d 987, 995 (7th Cir. 2018).Accordingly, Plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and Plaintiff's #1 Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff has twenty-one days from this Order to file an amended complaint and either pay the $405.00 filing fee or file an amended IFP petition. When amending his pleadings, Plaintiff should be mindful of this Court's limited jurisdiction. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff the Court's civil Complaint and IFP forms to use if he choses to file an amended complaint and move again for leave to proceed IFP. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 02/02/2026. (DW)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Michael Hatchett, Jr. Responses due by 2/13/2026 (DW) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Judge Dan Cordis, Samantha Cutler, Judge Mark E Giles, Katherine Hartzell, Jodi Hoos, Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, Illinois Secretary of State, Judge Caryn Kamp, Judge Suzanne Patton, all other unknown officials and agents involved, filed by Michael Hatchett, Jr.(DW) |
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.
