People Of The State Of Illinois v. Glover et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Signed by the Honorable Marvin E. Aspen on 2/13/2018. Mailed notice. (bg, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAMARI GLOVER,
Defendant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 17 C 8912
Hon. Marvin E. Aspen

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Marvin E. Aspen, District Judge:
This is an action involving removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442. Respondent Social
Security Administration (“SSA”) filed a motion to vacate and dismiss a state court order in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Criminal Division. (Mot. to Vacate (Dkt. No. 8).) The
challenged order compelled SSA to produce “any/all social security numbers associated with
Theresa Sawyer.” (Mot. to Vacate, Ex. A.) For the following reasons, we hereby grant SSA’s
motion to vacate and dismiss the state court order.
BACKGROUND
On December 11, 2017, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Criminal Division
entered the disputed order to compel in an underlying criminal case, in which SSA is not a party
(13 CR 13633). Id. The next day, SSA filed a notice of removal to this court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1442. (Dkt. No. 2; Mot. to Vacate ¶ 2.) Invoking sovereign immunity, SSA filed a

motion requesting we vacate the state court order, arguing state courts “may not compel
production of records or compliance with discovery by federal agencies or officials.” (Mot. to
Vacate ¶ 3.) Furthermore, SSA argues “federal law prohibit[s] disclosure of SSA records to the
state court in this case,” as compliance with the order would require the prohibited provision of
SSA records to third parties. (Id. ¶ 4.) We entered a briefing schedule on SSA’s motion to
vacate on December 21, 2017. (Dkt. No. 10.) Defendant Camari Glover1 did not file a response
by our ordered deadline. (Id.) Nor has Defendant filed a timely motion to remand. See
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (requiring motions to remand be filed within thirty days of removal).
ANALYSIS
Before addressing SSA’s argument, we first consider our authority to exercise
jurisdiction over this motion. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442, any civil or criminal action
“commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to [a federal agency] may be removed
by the[] [agency] to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing
the place wherein it is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Under § 1442, the definition of “civil
action” and “criminal prosecution” encompasses any “judicial order, including a subpoena for
testimony or documents.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(d)(1). Because this matter challenges a state court
order to compel SSA, a federal agency, to produce information in our district, we find removal
proper and exercise derivative jurisdiction over this dispute. See Edwards v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 43 F.3d 312, 315 (7th Cir. 1994).
We agree with SSA that state courts may not compel a federal agency or official unless
sovereign immunity has been waived. “[T]he United States may restrict the release of its

1

Neither SSA’s motion to vacate nor the state court order explicitly indicates which party to the
criminal prosecution requested SSA information. However, we assume that Defendant requested
SSA records because the order only names defense counsel.
2

information,” and state courts may not compel discovery of confidential information from an
“unwilling sovereign.” Edwards, 43 F.3d at 317 (affirming the quashing of a state subpoena
because the state court “had no jurisdiction to compel the delivery of [Department of Justice]
information”). Congress enacted. § 1442 to “protect federal officers from interference by hostile
state courts.” Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 405, 89 S. Ct. 1813, 1815 (1969) (discussing
the history of § 1442). Accordingly, federal courts vacate or quash state court orders compelling
federal agencies to produce information when the agency has not explicitly waived sovereign
immunity. See, e.g., Hous. Bus. Journal, Inc. v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
86 F.3d 1208, 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (explaining that where a litigant seeks to obtain documents
from a non-party federal government agency in state court, the federal government is shielded by
sovereign immunity, which prevents the state court from enforcing a subpoena);
Louisiana v. Sparks, 978 F.2d 226, 235 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing “myriad cases involving a
§ 1442(a) removal of a state subpoena proceeding against an unwilling federal officer [holding]
that the sovereign immunity doctrine bars enforcement of the subpoena”); Illinois v. Countee,
07 C 5319 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2007) (slip op.) (vacating rule to show cause order compelling
production of records by SSA) (attached to Mot. to Vacate, Ex. A); In re “Order to Show Cause
Why Soc. Sec. Admin. Should Not be Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply with This Court’s
Order Dated Oct. 19, 2006”, No. 07 60178 CIV, 2007 WL 2077632, at *2
(S.D. Fla. July 13, 2007) (“When a litigant seeks to obtain documents from a non-party federal
government agency in state court, the federal government is shielded by sovereign immunity,
thereby preventing the state court from enforcing a subpoena.”) (footnote omitted). We
accordingly vacate and dismiss the state court order compelling SSA to produce social security
information.

3

While SSA argues federal law and regulations prohibit disclosure of the requested
information, we do not decide the propriety of SSA’s decision to withhold the requested social
security numbers. (Mot. to Vacate ¶ 3.) Should Defendant seek to challenge the propriety of
SSA’s decision, Defendant must initiate a separate federal claim under the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. See Illinois v. Holmes, No. 17 C 183,
2017 WL 2345631, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017) (declining to convert a motion to vacate
and dismiss a state court order into an APA proceeding without the parties’ request).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we hereby grant SSA’s motion to vacate the state court order.
The instant action is hereby remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County in the underlying
criminal case (13 CR 13633). It is so ordered.

____________________________________
Marvin E. Aspen
United States District Judge
Dated: February 13, 2018
Chicago, Illinois

4