Bankston v. McLauchlan et al
Filing
19
ORDER granting 12 15 Motion to Dismiss. The cause of action against Defendants Madeline McLauchlan, Donald D Bernardi and Kevin P Fitzgerald is DISMISSED, with prejudice. See written Order attached. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/18/2011. (RK, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 22 November, 2011 11:28:28 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHNNIE L. BANKSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MADELINE MCLAUCHLAN,
JANE WALLER ANDERSON,
DONALD D. BERNARDI AND
KEVIN P. FITZGERALD
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 11-1271
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants= Motions to Dismiss the Plaintiff=s Complaint [#12
and #15]. For the following reasons, the Motions are GRANTED and the cause of action
against each of the moving Defendants is DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendant Jane
Waller Anderson has not been served at this time and no motion is pending related to this
Defendant. No action is taken by the Court with respect to this Defendant at this time.
BACKGROUND
On July 22, 2011, Plaintiff Johnnie L. Bankston (ABankston@ or APlaintiff@) filed a
Complaint against Defendants Assistant State=s Attorney Madline McLauchlan (AASA
McLauchlan@), Jane Waller Anderson, Judge Donald D. Bernardi (retired) (AJudge
Bernardi@), and Judge Kevin Fitzgerald (AJudge Fitzgerald@) alleging that Defendants
violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff=s allegations against the Defendant
Judges Bernardi and Fitzgerald appear to arise from their actions in a McLean County
1
Circuit Court case involving Plaintiff=s parental rights. Bankston=s action against ASA
McLauchlan apparently arises from her action of adding Plaintiff as a party in the child
custody case.
Finally, the claims against non-moving Defendant Ms. Jane Waller
Anderson, a social worker, are less clear but based on the Complaint she apparently
stated at some point in the underlying child custody case that the Plaintiff failed to
complete some programs or services. However, Defendant Anderson has not been
served and there is no motion pending related to her at this time. In the end, Bankston
requests this Court to reinstate his parental rights and award damages.
On August 29, 20111, Judge Bernardi and Judge Fitzgerald filed a Motion to
Dismiss asserting, among other things, that: (1) Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, (2) that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the State Court
Decision, (3) Plaintiff=s request for injunctive relief is barred by the Eleventh Amendment,
and (4) that the Judges are entitled to judicial immunity. On September 12, 2011, ASA
McLauchlan also filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that dismissal against her is
appropriate because: (1) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, (2) the claims against her fail
due to statute of limitations, (3) she is entitled to absolute immunity, and (4) this Court
lacks jurisdiction to review the Illinois state court decision under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine.
Coupled with their Motion, the Defendant Judges submitted an order issued by the
Appellate Court of Illinois -Fourth District involving the appeal of Bankston of the McLean
County Circuit Court decision. The order provides additional background regarding the
underlying child custody case that is helpful in putting Bankston=s claim in contexts;
however, as illustrated below these facts are not ultimately determinative of the instant
2
Motions. The Seventh Circuit provides that the Court may take judicial notice of the
public record without converting Defendant=s Motion to motion for summary judgment and
the Court does so for the purpose noted above. Henson v. CSC Credit Service, 29 F.3d
280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994). The Order provides that in May 2005, the Illinois Department of
Children and Family Services took a child (ultimately shown to be the child of Bankston)
into protective custody from the care of his mother. In re: B.B., a Minor, The People of
State of Illinois v. Johnnie Bankston, No. 40-09-0899 (Ill.App.Ct. April 6, 2010). In June
2005, Bankston was ordered to submit to a paternity test and in May 2006, Bankston=s
paternity of the child was established. Id. In April 2008, the State filed a petition in the
Circuit Court of McLean County to terminate Bankston=s parental rights on the basis of
depravity and repeated incarceration. Id. While other hearings occurred in Bankston=s
state case, ultimately on October 28, 2009, the Circuit Court found that Bankston was an
unfit parent on the basis alleged in the petition. Id. Bankston appealed to the Appellate
Court of Illinois - Fourth District arguing that his case should be overturned because he
was denied his right to counsel. Id. The Appellate Court rejected his argument and
affirmed the lower court. Id. Parenthetically, with only a brief exception when he was
released on parole, Bankston was an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections during his state court proceedings. Id.
Plaintiff was given notice of the case dispostive motions, provided the time frame
for a response and informed of the consequences of failing to respond. As of the date of
this Order, Plaintiff has failed to respond. This Order follows.
3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In resolving a motion to dismiss, this Court must consider all well-pled facts as true
and must draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Bontkowski v. First Nat'l
Bank of Cicero, 998 F.2d 459, 461 (7th Cir. 1993). In ruling on a motion to dismiss,
Courts consider whether relief is possible under any set of facts that could be established
consistent with the allegations in the complaint. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45B46
(1957). This Court will dismiss a claim only if it is beyond doubt that no set of facts would
entitle the Plaintiff to relief. Chaney v. Suburban Bus. Div., 52 F.3d 623, 627 (7th Cir.
1995); Venture Associates. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 432 (7th Cir.
1993). In the instant matter, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is pro se and in reviewing
his complaint the Court should hold it Ato less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.@ Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, Local Rule 7.1(B)(2) provides that if no response is timely filed,
the Court will presume there is no opposition to the motion and may rule without further
notice to the parties. Plaintiff was given adequate notice of the Defendants= dispositive
motions and informed of the consequences of failing to respond. Despite this notice,
Plaintiff has failed to present any opposition to the Court. As permitted by the Local
Rules, the Court shall move forward with ruling on the Motions with the assumption that
Plaintiff does not have any objection to the Motion.
4
The Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted
All of the moving Defendants argue that Bankston has failed to state a claim for
which relief can be granted. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the
claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction support, (2) a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which
may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Bankston=s Complaint inartfully raises vague allegations that Defendants violated
his rights under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 by certain actions of the Defendants in an Illinois state
court proceeding involving a determination of his parental rights. Defendants argue that
the Complaint fails to state a cause of action because Bankston has failed to allege what,
if any, rights were violated. In viewing the contexts of the entire case, as the natural
father, Bankston has a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management
of his child protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The termination of his parental
rights clearly interfered with this interest. However, under the most liberal construction,
taking all of the allegations in the Complaint as true, the Complaint is void of any action on
the part of the Defendants that would lead to the conclusion that they somehow violated
this fundamental right.
Bankston makes it clear that his issue related to the Judge Bernardi=s conduct is
related to him not conducting various hearings in the underlying state case and ordering
Bankston to comply with service despite his incarceration.
While Judge Bernardi
presided over some of the proceedings in the case, he did not ultimately decide the issue
5
of Bankston=s parental rights. Parenthetically, the order of the Appellate Court of Illinois
- Fourth District reveals that Bankston participated meaningfully in the various
proceedings despite his incarceration. See In re: B.B., a Minor, The People of State of
Illinois v. Johnnie Bankston, No. 40-09-0899 (Ill.App.Ct. April 6, 2010).
Likewise,
Bankston does not argue that ASA McLauchlan decided the status of his parental rights;
but rather, added him to a petition to determine the status of his parental rights. While
ASA McLauchlan=s action may have played a role in bringing this matter to the courts,
there is no allegations that she did so in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States.
While Judge Fitzgerald may have presided over the hearing terminated
Bankston=s parental rights, there are no allegations that his actions were in violation of
Constitution or laws of the United States. Because the Complaint fails to state a cause of
action against the moving Defendants, dismissal is appropriate.
The Defendants are entitled to immunity
Additionally, because Bankston has brought this case against the individual judges
and state employees, the Court must determine whether there is any potential basis for
liability by the state officials. A thorough review of the Complaint reveals that there has
been no allegation that the Judges acted outside of their official capacity. As illustrated
above, the action complained of was within the Judge=s official capacity. Because these
judges were acting within the scope of official capacity, each judge is protected from suit
by judicial immunity. See Forester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225-29 (1988); Loubser v.
Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 442 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing John v. Barron, 897 F.2d 1387,
1391-92 (7th Cir. 1990)). Judicial immunity also protects these judges from claims for
damage. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984). Likewise, ASA McLauchlan
6
has immunity in this case. She too was acting in her official capacity and thus, she is
protected by qualified immunity. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1992).
The moving Defendants are entitled to immunity under the various laws and thus, this
case must be dismissed.
The Court is without the authority to grant the injunctive relief Plaintiff= requests
Finally, in the instant lawsuit, Bankston seeks an order Areinstating [his] parental
rights@ The Court is without power to grant this type of injunctive relief requested. The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine Aessentially precludes lower federal court jurisdiction over
claims seeking review of state court judgments.@ Remer v. Burlington Area School Dist.,
205 F.3d 990, 996 (7th Cir. 2000). Specifically, it Abars federal jurisdiction when the
federal plaintiff alleges that her injury was caused by a state court judgment.@ Id. The
effect of this doctrine is to make it clear that Ano matter how erroneous or unconstitutional
the state court judgment may be, the Supreme Court of the United States is the only
federal court that could have jurisdiction to review a state court judgment.@ Id. As a
result, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decision of the Illinois state court.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants= Motions to Dismiss the Plaintiff=s
Complaint [#12 and #15] are GRANTED.
The cause of action against Defendants
Madeline McLauchlan, Judge Donald D. Bernadi and Judge Kevin P. Fitzgerald is
DISMISSED, with prejudice. Because she has not been served yet, the case against
Defendant Jane Waller Anderson shall proceed; however, the Court finds pursuant to
Rule 54 that there is no just reason for delay of entry of final judgment as to the claims
7
against Defendants Madeline McLauchlan, Judge Donald D. Bernadi and Judge Kevin P.
Fitzgerald. See Fed.R.Civ.P 54(b).
ENTERED this 18th day of November 2011.
/s/ Michael M. Mihm
Michael M. Mihm
U.S. District Court Judge
8
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?