Ahmed-Al-Khalifa v. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 1/29/2013: On January 24, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Oluwashina Kazeem Ahmed-Al-Khalifa, also known as Mark Ayilla, filed the present Complaint against the United States Court of Appeals for th e Seventh Circuit alleging violations of his constitutional rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Plaintiff brings a claim against a Defendant that is absolutely immune from lawsuits in federal court, the Court denies Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel and dismisses this lawsuit in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (For further details see attached order) Mailed notice(tlp, )

Download PDF
Order Form (01/2005) United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve CASE NUMBER 13 C 586 CASE TITLE Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge DATE 1/29/2013 Ahmed Al-Khalifa vs. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit DOCKET ENTRY TEXT On January 24, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Oluwashina Kazeem Ahmed-Al-Khalifa, also known as Mark Ayilla, filed the present Complaint against the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit alleging violations of his constitutional rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Plaintiff brings a claim against a Defendant that is absolutely immune from lawsuits in federal court, the Court denies Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel and dismisses this lawsuit in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices. STATEMENT On January 24, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Oluwashina Kazeem Ahmed-Al-Khalifa, also known as Mark Ayilla, filed the present Complaint against the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit alleging violations of his constitutional rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in lieu of paying the $350 filing fee and also moves for appointment of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Because Plaintiff brings a claim against a Defendant that is absolutely immune from lawsuits in federal court, the Court denies Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel and dismisses this lawsuit in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). LEGAL STANDARD Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must look beyond Plaintiff’s financial status and review his claims to determine whether the action he alleges is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or if it is seeking money damages from a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007); Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 829 (7th Cir. 2009). ANALYSIS Construing pro se Plaintiff’s allegations liberally, see Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 864-65 (7th Cir. 2012), he brings this lawsuit against the Seventh Circuit based on his appeal in case number 02-1068, along with his deportation. In particular, Plaintiff, who is a Nigerian citizen, maintains that he was denied his due process rights because he was deported despite the fact that the Seventh Circuit did not conclusively decide his direct criminal appeal. To clarify, Plaintiff’s lawyer on appeal filed a motion to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), because counsel could not discern a non-frivolous argument to pursue on appeal. The Seventh Circuit agreed. See United States v. Ayilla, 50 13C586 Ahmed Al-Khalifa vs. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit Page 1 of 2 STATEMENT Fed.Appx. 309, 311, 2002 WL 31430302 (7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2002). Thus, despite Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, the Seventh Circuit did conclusively decide his criminal appeal by dismissing it under wellestablished Supreme Court law. Moreover, Plaintiff is bringing a lawsuit against a Defendant that is immune from lawsuits in federal court, namely, the federal court itself. See Killinger v. Johnson, 389 F.3d 765, 770 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Absolute judicial immunity shields judicial and quasi-judicial actors from liability for civil damages arising out of the performance of their judicial functions.”); see also Coleman v. Dunlap, 695 F.3d 650, 652 (7th Cir. 2012); Polizin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court therefore dismisses this lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). 13C586 Ahmed Al-Khalifa vs. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit Page 2 of 2