Cedrins v. Vigil

Filing 8

WRITTEN Opinion; Signed by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 11/4/2010: For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is denied on the merits. Therefore, we dismiss the instant action and deny as moot all pending motions. Civil caseterminated. [ For further details see Order.] Mailed notice(hp, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan 10 C 6186

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER CASE TITLE
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

DATE Inara Cedrins vs. Inara Cedrins

11/4/2010

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is denied on the merits. Therefore, we dismiss the instant action and deny as moot all pending motions. Civil case terminated.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Inara Cedrins' (Cedrins) motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), "[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious . . . [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted . . . ." Id. Cedrins indicates in her pro se complaint, which includes two supplements, that she is bringing an action against a judge (Judge) that allegedly presided over a civil action in state court in which Cedrins was a party. Cedrins is suing the Judge alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and judicial misconduct. Cedrins is seeking as relief damages and a stay or revocation of a warrant allegedly issued for Cedrins' arrest. Cedrins appears to be dissatisfied with the rulings by the Judge in the civil action, but such dissatisfaction is not a valid basis for a legal claim in this court. In addition, Cedrins' complaint is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Johnson v. Orr, 551 F.3d 564, 568 (7th Cir. 2008)(stating that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine acts to strip federal courts of jurisdiction on claims where "the injury the plaintiff complains of resulted from, or is inextricably intertwined with, a state-court judgment"). Even when liberally construing Cedrins' pro se complaint, Cedrins has failed to allege facts that plausibly suggest a valid
10C6186 Inara Cedrins vs. Inara Cedrins

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT claim. McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 325 (7th Cir. 2000). Therefore, we dismiss the instant action and deny as moot all pending motions. We note that Cedrins previously filed a complaint against the Judge (case number 10 C 5865), which included claims identical to those alleged in the complaint in the instant action, and that Cedrins' previously filed action was dismissed on the same grounds.

10C6186 Inara Cedrins vs. Inara Cedrins

Page 2 of 2