Johnson v. Houghteling et al
| David R. Johnson |
| Gerald E. Kubasiak, Lindsay A. Valcho, Tchedy Y. Desire, Mary Patburns, Lisa Madigan, Lisa Nesbitt, Scott Harris, Robert J. Sprague, Peter J. Birnaum, Tom Lytton, John C. Anderson, Mary W. McDade, Delores J. Martin, Norma F. Jann, Clare Houghteling, Diane Moshman, Robert J. Steffen, Mary K. O'Brin, Donald J. Storino and Jesse White |
| 1:2020cv07472 |
| December 10, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Manish S Shah |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 29, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint #6 is denied as moot. The Clerk's Office docketed the motion after the court entered its order closing this case. The motion asks to drop a defendant but does not otherwise cure the problems of the proposed complaint. The request to dismiss a defendant is now moot because the court has closed this case in its entirety (without prejudice to plaintiff raising arguments in his earlier-filed case 20 CV 5862). Notices mailed. (psm, ) |
| Filing 5 ENTERED JUDGMENT. Notices mailed. (psm, ) |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: This case was opened as a new case based on plaintiff's submitted document titled "Complaint" with the notation "Pro Se New Case." #1 . It appears directed at issues raised in a pending case, 20 CV 5862. To the extent plaintiff has arguments to raise in that case, he should file his arguments using that case number. For example, plaintiff could seek permission to file an amended complaint in that case in response to arguments raised by the State of Illinois in a motion to dismiss. As a new complaint and case number, this case is dismissed. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis. The allegations against judges for failing to recuse do not state claims because judges are immune from such suits. The allegations against court clerks similarly fail to state a claim because court clerks enjoy quasi-judicial immunity for their work performed at the direction of judges. The allegations against Assistant Attorneys General for filing sanctionable documents in litigation do not plausibly suggest a deprivation of federal rights and likely run into a federal litigation privilege. Steffes v. Stepan Co., 144 F.3d 1070, 1075 (7th Cir. 1998) (distinguishing federal litigation privilege from Illinois common-law litigation privilege). The allegations against Jesse White seem directed at his capacity as an ex-officio clerk of the Illinois court of claims, and so fall under the quasi-judicial immunity for court clerks. There are no plausible allegations that Jesse White was personally involved in the deprivation of federal rights. This case is closed, without prejudice to plaintiff raising arguments or seeking permission to amend his claims in 20 CV 5862. Notices mailed. (psm, ) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by David R. Johnson of Filing Sent to Respondents; Exhibits. (lw, ) |
| Filing 6 MOTION by Plaintiff David R. Johnson to file an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985. (Exhibit) (jh, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (jh, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint by David R. Johnson. (Received for Docketing on 12/17/2020) (jh, ) |
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.
