Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:21-cv-01313_de4> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:21-cv-01313_de4 RegisterActionDate "2021-03-16" @default.
- ilnd;;1:21-cv-01313_de4 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the complaint submitted by Plaintiff F769FCD, a pro se litigant. She also filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The form appears to show that Plaintiff is indigent, but the form is incomplete. In response to question #1, she responded that she is not employed. But she did not answer the follow-up question, which asked when she was last employed. The form also states that she provides 100% of the support for two children. But the form does not explain how she provides support, because it states that she has no assets or income. Perhaps she receives public assistance, but if so, Plaintiff must say so. Accordingly, Plaintiff must file an updated form and provide the information so that the Court can assess the application. Also, the Court took a look at the complaint. Under Section 1915(e)(2), the Court must screen pro se complaints and dismiss the complaint, or any claims therein, if the Court determines that the complaint or claim 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. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214 (2007); Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). The complaint invokes a handful of federal civil rights statutes, such as section 1983. The complaint seems to advance claims against a few officers from Will County under theories of a failure to intervene and conspiracy. But the factual basis for the complaint is less than entirely clear. The most detailed statement is the following: "A JUDGEMENT [sic] WAS MADE, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, WHICH HAS TEMPORARILY TAKEN MY CHILD OUT OF MY HOME WITHOUT MY PERMISSION." It appears that Plaintiff may be challenging a state proceeding about child custody. If so, it may fall within the domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 701-02 (1992); Struck v. Cook Cnty Pub. Guardian, 508 F.3d 858, 860 (7th Cir. 2007); Friedlander v. Friedlander, 149 F.3d 739, 740 (7th Cir. 1998). State courts, not federal courts, handle child custody proceedings. Also, under the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal court cannot hear a challenge to a state court judgment. That situation seems to be what Plaintiff is alleging here, because she refers to a "JUDGEMENT." Plaintiff must allege more facts so that the Court can determine whether it states a claim. Plaintiff must file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, and must file an amended complaint, by April 22, 2021. A failure to do so will lead to dismissal. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Entered: 03/16/2021)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:21-cv-01313_de4 AdministrativeID "7" @default.
- ilnd;;1:21-cv-01313_de4 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.