Vann v. Young Men's Christian Association of Chicago, Inc.

Filing 33

WRITTEN Opinion signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 11/8/2011: On October 24, 2011, Vann filed documents entitled "verified complaint" and "independent actions" (Doc 32 ). Because the Court previously disposed of Vann& #039;s case, the Court views Vann's papers as a motion to reinstate the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 ("Rule 60"). Plaintiff's motion to reinstate is denied. (For further details see minute order.) Mailed notice(sct, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Charles P. Kocoras

CASE NUMBER

08 C 4771

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

November 8, 2011

Vann vs. Young Men’s Christian Association of Chicago et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

On October 24, 2011, Vann filed documents entitled “verified complaint” and “independent actions” (Doc [32]).
Because the Court previously disposed of Vann’s case, the Court views Vann’s papers as a motion to reinstate
the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (“Rule 60”). Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate is denied.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

ORDER
This case comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Barnita Vann (“Vann”) to reinstate her case.
For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.
This case arises from an eviction action by Defendant Young Men’s Christian Association of Chicago (the
“YMCA”) against Vann in Illinois state court. On August 21, 2008, Vann sought a preliminary injunction in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to enjoin the state court eviction proceedings.
On October 2, 2008, Judge Anderson dismissed Vann’s case, concluding that the rental dispute did not contain
a federal cause of action and, therefore, that the federal court was without subject matter jurisdiction. Vann then
filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing that her case
contained a federal component because the state court facilitated her eviction and the court thereby deprived her
of due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Thereafter, the case was reassigned to this Court. On April 3, 2009, this Court held that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Vann complained of an injury which
resulted from the actions of the state courts and their judgments. On July 13, 2009, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit summarily affirmed this Court’s judgment.
More than two years later, on October 24, 2011, Vann filed documents entitled “verified complaint” and
“independent actions.” Because the Court previously disposed of Vann’s case, the Court views Vann’s papers
as a motion to reinstate the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (“Rule 60”).
A plaintiff can move for relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b) for the following reasons: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation,
or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
08C4771 Vann vs. Young Men’s Christian Association of Chicago et al

Page 1 of 2

ORDER
discharged, or is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or applying the judgment
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A plaintiff
must file a Rule 60 motion within a reasonable time and, in the case of mistake, newly discovered evidence, or
fraud, no more than one year after entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
Vann’s motion to reinstate fails for two reasons. First, Vann identifies no reason for her undue delay in
filing the instant motion more than two years after this Court’s decision. Thus, the Court concludes that Vann’s
motion is untimely. Second, Vann presents no reason justifying relief from this Court’s judgment. The Court
properly dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See
Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (explaining that a United States
District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court); see also Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263
U.S. 413 (1923); Johnson v. Orr, 551 F.3d 564 (7th Cir. 2008) (“If the injury the plaintiff complains of resulted
from, or is inextricably intertwined with, a state-court judgment, then lower federal courts cannot hear the
claim.”). Indeed, Vann’s motion states that she “has pursued this matter through the Illinois Court System and
the United States Supreme Court.” Vann cannot revive this previously closed case, which this Court properly
dismissed more than two years ago. Accordingly, Vann’s motion is denied.

Date: November 8, 2011
CHARLES P. KOCORAS
U.S. District Judge

08C4771 Vann vs. Young Men’s Christian Association of Chicago et al

Page 2 of 2