Gramarosso v. McManamon et al
| Jo Ellen Marie Gramarosso |
| A Kirsh, Dorothy Brown, Boyd Matthew, Amy K Anderson, David Wessel, Nicholas J McManamon, William Stewart, Grace G. Dickler, Thomas T Bcondas, Zac Williams and Gregory Emmett Ahern Jr |
| 1:2020cv05763 |
| September 28, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Contract: Insurance |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 28, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: On September 30, 2020, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for a number of reasons, including the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (Dckt. No. #5 ) State court losers cannot challenge state court judgments in federal district court (aside from habeas, which this case is not). On its face, the complaint challenges a state court judgment, and does so on an issue of domestic relations. This Court directed Plaintiff to respond by October 26, 2020, and show cause why the case belongs in federal court. Plaintiff did not respond. The complaint is dismissed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE: Liability by Jo Ellen Marie Gramarosso; Notice. (ph, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the newly-filed complaint. By October 26, 2020, Plaintiff Gramarosso shall show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed as frivolous, and/or as an improper collateral attack on a state court judgment, and/or for the other reasons explained below. Under the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine, state court losers cannot challenge state court judgments in federal court. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005). "[T]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine 'precludes lower federal court jurisdiction over claims seeking review of state court judgments... [because] no matter how erroneous or unconstitutional the state court judgment may be, the Supreme Court of the United States is the only federal court that could have jurisdiction to review a state court judgment." Brokaw v. Weaver, 305 F.3d 660, 664 (7th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). If a party believes that a state court erred, the remedy is to appeal in Illinois state court, not bring a separate lawsuit in federal court. Federal courts do not get involved in domestic relations, either. See Zawistowski v. Kramer, 820 F. Appx. 481 (7th Cir. 2020). On its face, the complaint would appear to fall into both categories. The complaint reads: "I come to this court as a common woman under the Creation of God. I am asking for mercy of the court to provide me under Article III Federal Common Law Court to present the evidence that was not allowed in the Circuit Clerk [sic] of Cook County, Illinois County [sic] Department of Domestic Relations Division." (Dckt. No. #1 , at 6-7) The complaint also seems to ask this Court to enter an "emergency injunction to cease and desist all activities and actions on lower court case," meaning the case in state court, which raises problems under the Anti-Injunction Act. So, Plaintiff shall file a statement that explains why this case belongs in federal court, and must do so by October 26, 2020. A failure to show cause will lead to dismissal. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 4 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Jo Ellen Marie Gramarosso (mc, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Jo Ellen Marie Gramarosso for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (mc, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (mc, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Jo Ellen Marie Gramarosso (Exhibit). (mc, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US 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.
