Massey v. State of Illinois et al
| Carlos Massey |
| State of Illinois, Jay Robert Pritzker, Illinois Supreme Court, Cynthia A Grant, State of Indiana, Lake County Prosecutor, Illinois Attorney General, Kwame Raoul, United States District Attorney's Office, United States Courts and United States Departmenr of Justice |
| 1:2023cv05339 |
| August 10, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Thomas M Durkin |
| Prisoner: Mandamus & Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 22, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 ENTERED JUDGMENT. Mailed notice. (kp, ) |
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Massey filed a proposed amended petition on 9/12/2023. As an initial matter, Massey states that the Clerk of Court dismissed his original petition. It was this Court, not the Clerk, that dismissed his original petition, and rules on his amended petition in this order. Massey's amended petition does not cure the deficiencies identified in this Court's August 16, 2023 order dismissing the original petition without prejudice. Massey's petition still fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Massey seeks a writ of mandamus requiring (1) the DOJ to require the State of Illinois to submit a rebuttal to Massey's submitted affidavit, pay him damages, or prosecute all state actors who allegedly acted in a civil RICO conspiracy; (2) the Administrative Office ("A.O.") of the U.S. Courts to "release the findings" or show cause for failing to intervene in constitutional violations submitted before them; and (3) this Court to afford Massey "equal protection of the law as required by the treaties of the United Nations." For the reasons previously stated, the Court cannot compel the DOJ to take the requested actions. Additionally, the Court cannot compel the A.O. to take the requested actions because the A.O. is not "an officer or employee of the United States" or part of the executive branch as required under 28 U.S.C. 1361, and Massey fails to adequately plead the A.O. has a duty to undertake such actions. And the final request for this Court to compel itself to take certain actions defies logic. Moreover, Massey's contention that the applicable law cited by this Court is "fraudulent" is without merit, and the statutes and case law he cites are inapposite. Massey also filed an objection to a magistrate judge conducting proceedings in this case. No proceedings have been conducted by a magistrate judge in this case, so Massey's objection is overruled. For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice. Mailed notice. (kp, ) |
| Filing 9 RECEIVED AMENDED complaint by Carlos Massey against Cynthia A Grant, Illinois Attorney General, Illinois Supreme Court, Lake County Prosecutor, Jay Robert Pritzker, Kwame Raoul, State of Illinois. (Exhibits) (Received for Docketing 09/18/2023) (rc, ) |
| Filing 8 OBJECTIONS by Petitioner Carlos Massey to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. (Attachment) (rc, ) |
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Carlos Massey filed a pro se emergency petition for a writ of mandamus against the State of Illinois and Governor Jay Robert Pritzker, the Illinois Supreme Court and Clerk of Court Cynthia Grant, Office of the Illinois Attorney General and Kwame Raoul, the State of Indiana, the Lake County Prosecutor, the United States Attorney's Office, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the United States Department of Justice. Massey also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for attorney representation. This Court must screen all pleadings accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss a pleading that is "frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Hutchinson v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 1997) (recognizing the applicability of 1915 to cases brought by non-prisoners). Massey's petition is largely inscrutable. It spans 146 pages, including state court filings, emails and letters to federal and state courts, agencies, and elected officials, and social media postings, among other things. His petition thus does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a short, plain statement for which relief can be granted, and the Court could hold that Massey fails to state a claim on that basis alone. But even from what the Court can discern, no arguable legal basis exists for Massey's requests. Massey appears to ask this Court to compel the Respondents to take or refrain from taking certain actions, including rebutting an affidavit he attaches, initiating investigations, producing copies of state court orders, giving him discovery, initiating prosecutions against others, and ceasing prosecutions against him. A district court may only issue a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. 1361 to compel "an officer or employee of the United States... to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." In other words, mandamus jurisdiction applies to actions to compel federal officers, not states or state officers. This Court thus cannot compel action by the States of Illinois and Indiana, the Illinois Supreme Court, the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Governor Pritzker, Illinois Attorney General Raoul, Clerk of Court Grant, or the Lake County Prosecutor through a writ of mandamus. Additionally, the district court may only compel an officer or employee of the United States to perform a duty if the duty owed is a "clear nondiscretionary duty." Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984); Sutherland v. Leonart, 507 F. App'x 598, 599 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Absent legal constraints on an agency's discretion, mandamus relief is an inappropriate remedy to compel an agency to investigate or prosecute violations of the substantive law it enforces."). The decision by the Department of Justice (of which the United States Attorney's Office is a part) to prosecute an individual is purely discretionary, so this Court cannot compel the federal prosecutions Massey seeks. This Court is left with Massey's request to "compel the honest services of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability who failed to intervene and committed mail fraud in the correspondence in response to the complaint submitted." R. 1 at 12. Massey request appears to relate to a judicial conduct complaint which was dismissed, and that a circuit judicial council affirmed over eight years ago. See generally R. 10822. But beyond that, it is entirely unclear to this Court what relief Massey seeks much less, "(1) a clear right to the relief sought; (2) that the defendant has a duty to do the act in question; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available." Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament, 877 F.3d 272, 275 (7th Cir. 2017). Massey's emergency petition #1 is therefore dismissed without prejudice. He may file a proposed amended petition by or before September 5, 2023. His application to proceed in forma pauperis #3 and motion for attorney representation #4 are denied as moot. Mailed notice. (kp, ) |
| MAILED copy of the Clerk's Notice entry along with the Joint Consent Form to Plaintiff Carlos Massey. (rc, ) |
| Filing 6 PRO SE Appearance by Petitioner Carlos Massey. (rc, ) |
| Filing 4 MOTION by Petitioner Carlos Massey for attorney representation. (rc, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Petitioner Carlos Massey for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (rc, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (rc, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and by Carlos Massey. (Exhibits) (rc, ) |
| 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. (rc, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (rc, ) |
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.
