Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:20-cv-07370_de5> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07370_de5 RegisterActionDate "2020-12-30" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07370_de5 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dckt. No. 3 ), as well as the accompanying complaint. Defendant purports to remove this case from state court. But the underlying case is a domestic relations dispute: a divorce proceeding between the two parties. That much is clear from the caption: "In re Marriage of Swartz-McInerney." The "domestic-relations exception" discourages federal courts from hearing cases that would traditionally fall within the ambit of domestic relations. See, e.g., Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 305-06 (2006); Jones v. Brennan, 465 F.3d 304, 306 (7th Cir. 2006). Also, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this Court cannot review decisions made by the state court. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); see also Brokaw v. Weaver, 305 F.3d 660, 664 (7th Cir. 2002). Along the way, Plaintiff complains about political corruption in the state courts, his entrance to and exit from an MBA program, and the failures of his lawyer in the state court case (among other issues), none of which would appear to state a federal claim. By January 8, 2021, Plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) Modified on 1/22/2021 (jjr, ). (Entered: 12/30/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07370_de5 AdministrativeID "7" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07370_de5 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07370_de5 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:20-cv-07370_de2 @default.