Jones v. Groth et al
| Jason M. Jones |
| Kathaleen T. Groth, Stephen J. Connolly, Kathleen Burke, Toni Pittman, Saundra Finley, Brandi N. Pratt, Joel D. Buikema, Michael J. Carmody, Jason Keehma and IL. Dept. of Health & Family Services |
| 1:2022cv02028 |
| April 18, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Martha M Pacold |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 9, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff has filed a document titled "Notice of Petition for Writ of Mandamus." On 5/20/2022, this court dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, entered final judgment, and terminated the case. #6 . Nothing in the new filing affects the court's prior decision. This case remains closed. (rao, ) |
| Filing 10 PETITION WRIT OF CERTIORARI WRIT OF MANDAMUS WRIT OF'PROHIBITION. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF PETITION WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL Defendant to provide evidence of Jurisdiction all writs section 28 USC Section 1651. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 7 ENTERED JUDGMENT. Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 5/20/2022. Mailed notice. (kl, ) |
Filing 6
ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis #5 is denied, and this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that... the action... (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff Jason M. Jones filed this action against ten defendants regarding a state court child support case. The complaint requests that this court order relief such as granting plaintiff phone privileges with his child, ordering a mental health evaluation of another party involved in the proceeding, and dismissing the underlying child support case for lack of jurisdiction. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 70204 (1992) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees); Dawaji v. Askar, 618 F. App'x 858, 860 (7th Cir. 2015) (domestic relations exception to federal subject matter jurisdiction precluded federal jurisdiction to evaluate merits of child support award). Further, "[u]nder the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over claims seeking review of state court judgments." Long v. Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1999). Jones cannot obtain federal review of the state court child support proceeding simply by recasting his challenge as a federal constitutional claim. See Ritter v. Ross, 992 F.2d 750, 75455 (7th Cir. 1993). Additionally, five of the defendants (Connolly, Groth, Burke, Buikema, Carmody) are state court judges. State-court judges are absolutely immune from suit for acts performed in their judicial capacity. Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 660- 61 (7th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Enter final judgment. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 5/20/2022. Mailed notice. (kl, )
|
| ***Civil Case Terminated. (kl, ) |
| Filing 5 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Jason M. Jones for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (exr, ) |
| Filing 4 MAILED blank application to proceed in forma pauperis, along with a copy of the order dated 4/21/2022 to plaintiff (exr, ) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER: Plaintiff has submitted a complaint #1 but did not prepay the filing fee or file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. By 5/19/2022, Plaintiff must either: (1) submit a completed application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis that includes; or (2) pay the full statutory filing fee of $402.00. If he does not comply, the Court will summarily dismiss this case. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis, along with a copy of this order. Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 4/21/2022. Mailed notice. (exr, )
|
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (exr, ) |
| MAILED copy of the Clerk's Notice entry along with the Joint Consent Form to Plaintiff (exr, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (exr, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Jason M. Jones (exr, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. FEE DUE, NO INFORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION SUBMITTED. Case assignment: Random assignment. (exr, ) |
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.
