Cerne v. Tracy et al
| Neal Cerne, Wheaton Public School District #200, Rolf Flechsig, DuPage County Sheriff, Anne Walsh, Michael E. Powers, Chantelle Porter, Tim Greeor, DuPage County Pretrial Services, Robert Berlin, Adele Flechsig, William Cooley, Naperville Police Department and Tammy Daniele |
| Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr. |
| 1:2018cv06602 |
| September 27, 2018 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Z Lee |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 18, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:Defendant Tracy has filed an emergency motion for summary judgment #17 and an amendment to the motion #18 . However, the Court has already determined that his cases are non-removable and has remanded them to the state court. To the extent Defendant's motion can be construed as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to amend or correct the Court's previous order, or a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to alter or amend the judgment, the motion is denied. To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment, a party must clearly establish (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment. Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). As for a motion under Rule 60(b), a party must show that relief is appropriate because of (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a voided judgment; (5) a satisfied judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see Eskridge v. Cook Cty., 577 F.3d 806, 80809 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff's motion does not make any argument for altering or amending the Court's previous orders; rather, he merely reiterates the same conclusory statements contained in his previous motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, his emergency motion for summary judgment #17 and amendment #18 are denied. The case remains terminated and remanded to the state court.Mailed notice (ca, ) |
| Filing 16 REMAND with certified copy of order dated 10/15/2018 and letter to 18th Judicial Circuit Court of DuPage County. (Attachments: #1 Order). (eaa, ) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE by Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr of Motion. (Received for Docketing on 10/17/18). (eaa, ) |
| Filing 18 AMENDMENT TO EMERGENCY MOTION by Defendant Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr for summary judgment on writs. (Received for Docketing on 10/17/18). (eaa, ) |
| Filing 17 EMERGENCY MOTION by Defendant Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr for summary judgment on writs. (Received for Docketing on 10/17/18). (eaa, ) |
| Filing 15 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:In light of the Court's previous minute entry #14 , the Defendant's amended emergency motion for summary judgment #13 is denied as moot.Mailed notice (ca, ) |
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Defendant Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr., initiated this action by filing a notice of removal, purporting to remove five cases (2012MR1074, 2017DV000025, 2018DV000046, 2017DV0000465, and 2018DV000025) from the 18th Judicial Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois #1 . His notice of removal invokes 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1441, 1446, and 1452, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1986. Id. He names as "plaintiffs" several private individuals and a number of state officials, including attorneys, judges, police, the DuPage County Sheriff, and the Wheaton Public School District. Id. Defendant has also filed "emergency" motions for summary judgment #8 #9 #11 . However, the Court sua sponte dismisses Defendant's notice of removal, because it does not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1446. For instance, Defendant has filed over 200 pages of documents from various state-court cases, dating back to early 2016. Nowhere in this pile of documents, however, can the Court locate an "initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief" against Defendant that was filed less than 30 days before his notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(1). Instead, to the extent the Court is able to locate any initial pleadings filed against Defendant, they fall outside the 30-day window for removal. What is more, the cases filed against Defendant appear to be either state criminal cases or cases involving child custody and family-law matters. The Court cannot conclude that a basis for federal jurisdiction would exist over these cases. The cases do not, on their face, raise a federal question; nor do the parties appear to be of diverse citizenship. See28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332. And to the extent Defendant seeks to overturn state-court custody decisions, that issue is nonjusticiable in federal court. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards,504 U.S. 689, 704 (1992). Thus Defendant's notice of removal is not proper under 1441 (removal of civil actions), 1446 (setting forth procedures for removal), or 1452 (removal of claims related to bankruptcy). If Defendant wishes to file an original action asserting civil-rights claims under 1983, 1985, or 1986, he must follow the procedures for doing so under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Local Rules. The same is true if Defendant wishes to file an original action seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 or 2254. As for this case, Defendant's notice of removal is dismissed #1 , his emergency motions for summary judgment are denied #8 #9 #11 , and the cases are remanded to the 18th Judicial Circuit Court of DuPage County forthwith. Civil case terminated.Mailed notice (ca, ) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE by Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr of Motion. (eaa, ) |
| Filing 9 AMENDMENT EMERGENCY MOTION by Defendant Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr for summary judgment on writs. (eaa, ) |
| Filing 8 EMERGENCY MOTION by Defendant Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr for summary judgment on writs. (eaa, ) |
| Filing 13 AMENDMENT EMERGENCY MOTION by Defendant Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr for summary judgment on writs. (eaa, ) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE by Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr Motion. (eaa, ) |
| Filing 11 EMERGENCY MOTION by Defendant Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr for summary judgment on writs. (eaa, ) |
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Initial status hearing set for 11/13/18 at 9:15 a.m. Judge Lee participates in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project ("Project"). The Project applies to all cases filed on or after June 1, 2017, excluding the following: (1) cases exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B), (2) actions brought by a person in the custody of the United States, a state, or a state subdivision, regardless of whether an attorney is recruited, (3) actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, (4) patent cases governed by the Local Patent Rules, and (5) cases transferred for consolidated administration in the District by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("Exempt Cases").For all cases to which the Project applies, Judge Lee requires (1) each attorney appearing on behalf of Plaintiff(s) to file a "Certification by Attorney Regarding Discovery Obligations Under Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project" form within 28 days after the filing of the Complaint and (2) each attorney appearing on behalf of Defendant(s) to file the certification form with the Answer. The parties are directed to file a joint initial status report four business days prior to the initial status hearing. The certification form and initial status report requirements are set forth in Judge Lee's standing order regarding the "Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project" available on the Courts website. For all Exempt Cases, the parties are directed to file a joint initial status report four business days prior to the initial status hearing in accordance with the standing order governing "Initial Status Report in Cases Exempt from the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project" also available on the Court's website. Mailed notice (ca, ) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (eaa, ) |
| Filing 5 MAILED Notice of Removal letter to counsel of record. (eaa, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Defendant Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr. (eaa, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (eaa, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE of Removal from 18th Judicial Circuit DuPage County, copy of complaint and summons, case number (17 DV 25) filed by Stephen Douglas Tracy, Jr Filing fee $ 400. (eaa, ) |
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 Northern 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.
