Kleiss v. John Doe
Filing
15
ORDER and OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 6/22/2011. Plaintiff's 10 Motion to Stay of Proceedings pending Appeal is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. CASE TERMINATED. (cc: Plaintiff) (KB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 23 June, 2011 08:26:37 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
JERRY KLEISS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JIM DROZDZ, Illinois State Prosecutor,
Hancock, Illinois
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 11-1215
ORDER & OPINION
On June 6, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint with this
Court seeking an order staying the ongoing state court criminal proceedings against
him. (Doc. 1).1 On June 8, 2011, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice because Plaintiff had failed to properly name a Defendant. (Doc. 4). On
June 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in which he named Jim
Drozdz, the Illinois State Prosecutor for Hancock County, Illinois, as Defendant.
(Doc. 6). On June 16, 2011, this Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to
consider Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971),
and therefore dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 7).
On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 11). In addition,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (Doc. 10). Plaintiff
The state court proceedings are allegedly set to begin on again on June 23, 2011.
(Doc. 9).
1
again asks the Court to stay his state court criminal proceedings, this time pending
the appeal of this Court’s decision that it does not have jurisdiction over his
Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10). However, as the Court found in its Order and
Opinion of June 16, 2011, it does not have the jurisdiction to stay such proceedings.
Accordingly, because the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction pursuant to the
Younger doctrine, it again cannot properly reach out and stay Plaintiff’s state court
proceedings.
Moreover, Plaintiff has neither paid the applicable filing fee in this matter,
nor been granted in forma pauperis status.
Although Plaintiff initially filed a
Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), this motion was both incomplete on
its face and inaccurate according to a subsequent Letter Plaintiff sent to the Court.
(Doc. 5).
Therefore, in addition to the Court lacking jurisdiction pursuant to
Younger, it also lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiff is not properly before it.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
CASE TERMINATED.
Entered this 22nd day of June, 2011.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
2
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.
Why Is My Information Online?