Orlandini v. Zeigler Illinois et al

Filing 13

ORDER ON JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW as to FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff and DENYING 11 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Joseph Williams: For the reasons explained in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court verifies that the First A mended Complaint properly pleads subject matter jurisdiction and TRACKS this case as a Track B. The Court denies as moot Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) the original complaint. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 11/12/12. (soh )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LORNA ORLANDINI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF ZIEGLER, ILLINOIS,
And JOSEPH K. WILLIAMS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-cv-0984-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
In September 2012, Lorna Orlandini filed a complaint in this United States District
Court naming two Defendants: (1) the City of Ziegler, Illinois and (2) an individual,
Joseph K. Williams. When an attorney entered on behalf of one of the two Defendants,
the undersigned District Judge conducted threshold review of the suit.
In an Order dated October 16, 2012, the Court noted that the suit appeared to
present claims for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting
from the death of Plaintiff’s son, Chad Orlandini, but the complaint was unclear as to
whether Chad died while in police custody, whether Chad’s mother is alleging violation
of civil or constitutional rights, or how her claims supported the exercise of this Court’s
jurisdiction: “Simply put, the complaint, as drafted, does not articulate the basis for
federal subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court is not permitted to speculate but must
know precisely what jurisdictional source the plaintiff asserts and then determine
whether in fact jurisdiction lies” (Doc. 7, p. 3).

1

The Court directed Plaintiff’s counsel to file a First Amended Complaint clearly
alleging the basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this District Court. Plaintiff did so on
November 9, 2012.

The amended complaint does not specifically cite the federal

diversity statute (28 U.S.C. 1332), the federal question statute (28 U.S.C. 1331), or the
supplemental jurisdiction statute (28 U.S.C 1367). Count IV of the complaint, however,
references the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and a federal civil
rights statute, 42 U.S.C. 1983. It also states that this “matter is a federal issue and
federal question of law” furnishing subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 12, p. 5).
The amended complaint sufficiently invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. 1331. Accordingly, the case will be ASSIGNED a B Track and (by separate
Order) given a firm trial date.
One other matter bears mention. In his pro se answer to the complaint filed
October 23, 2012, Defendant Williams presented a motion to dismiss the counts of the
original complaint which were directed against him. The Court DENIES the motion to
dismiss (contained within Doc. 10, given separate docket number of Doc. 11) on several
grounds.
First, dismissal motions should be filed separately, not included within the
defendant’s answer. Second, the dismissal motion was directed at a complaint which
the Court previously found insufficient on jurisdictional grounds and ordered amended.
Because the dismissal motion was directed at a complaint that has been replaced by an
amended complaint, Williams’ dismissal motion has been rendered moot. Finally, if the
Court had considered the dismissal motion on the merits, the undersigned Judge would
not have found dismissal warranted on the bases presented in the motion.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED November 12, 2012.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

3