Tatro v. State of Illinois Criminal Court et al

Filing 3

OPINION (See Written Opinion): Tatro's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (d/e 2) is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/13/2011. (VM, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 13 October, 2011 11:43:32 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
RONALD TATRO,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS CRIMINAL
COURT, and SANGAMON
COUNTY JUVENILE DIVISION
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 11-3384

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Ronald L. Tatro, proceeding pro se, seeks to file a document (petition) in
which he asks this Court to intervene in a state court proceeding to permanently
terminate his parental rights. Pending also is a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. See d/e 2. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED.

I. BACKGROUND
The Court has reviewed Tatro’s petition. As stated, his proposed petition
concerns a proceeding to terminate parental rights in the Circuit Court for the
Page 1 of 3

Seventh Judicial Circuit of Illinois, Sangamon County.
Tatro claims that if the state court terminates his parental rights it would be
“a life sentence on [Tatro’s] family.” Tatro asks this Court “to make a ruling the
State of Illinois will have to respect.” Accordingly, it appears Tatro is requesting
that this Court halt the state court proceedings and assume jurisdiction over the
matter.
II. ANALYSIS
This action will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The
Court lacks the authority to grant Tatro’s request.
“[V]isitation and the termination of parental rights are beyond the scope of a
federal court.” Lewis v. Family and Social Services Adminstration, 2005 WL
2562988, at * 1 (N.D. Ind. 2005) (citing Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979).)
Moreover, to the extent Tatro is asking this Court to review any decision of the
state court in the termination proceedings, “federal district courts cannot review the
merits of decisions made by state courts in civil litigation.” See Mannix v.
Machnik, 244 F. App’x 37, 39 (7th Cir. 2007). Any relief from an adverse state
court decision must be sought through the state appellate system. See id.
Accordingly, this Court is unable to entertain Tatro’s claim.
III. CONCLUSION
Page 2 of 3

THEREFORE, Tatro’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (d/e 2)
is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER: October 13, 2011.
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3