Kauling v. Fifth District Appellate Court et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court DENIES Kaulings motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis (Doc. 2 ), DISMISSES this case for failure to state a claim and seeking monetary damages against an immune defendant, and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 5/21/2014. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARY JO KAULING,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 14-cv-551-JPG-SCW

FIFTH DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT,
MARION COUNTY COURT, ILLINOIS, and
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Mary Jo Kauling’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). In her complaint, Kauling alleges wrongdoing by the
Marion County, Illinois, and Fifth District Appellate Court Judges. Specifically, Kauling alleges
as follows:
Denied equal treatment as a pro se, forma pauperis, disabled Petitioner. The case
has meritorious basis. Evidence and the need for compensation. Plaintiff’s bill of
rights were denied. Plaintiff was denied access to a Judge whereas defendants
late entry and violating legal counsel was granted ex parte treatment. Plaintiff’s
original favored ruling was illegally overturned by improper court proceedings
done by an attorney entering late, improper and with no respect for reasonable
care and loss done to a human, woman or even a person. Plaintiff’s life was
endangered, violated and illegally used by a doctor.
Doc. 1, p. 5.
A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma
pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim,
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The test
for determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is whether the plaintiff can make a

rational argument on the law or facts in support of the claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989); Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247 (7th Cir. 1983). An action fails to state a
claim if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). When assessing a petition to proceed
in forma pauperis, a district court should inquire into the merits of the petitioner’s claims, and if
the court finds them to be frivolous, it should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v.
Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982).
The Court has no reason to doubt Kauling’s indigency; however, the Court finds her
claim is frivolous. Judges enjoy absolute immunity in the exercise of their judicial functions.
Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10 (1991). This immunity includes immunity from suit and not
just immunity from damages claims. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).
Here, Kauling has failed to state sufficient facts for any defendant to be put on notice of
the claim against her. When a plaintiff pleads insufficient facts, the Court normally grants leave
to replead. Here, however, leave to replead is unnecessary. Specifically, Kauling’s claims are
clearly barred by judicial immunity because her complaint attempts to state claims against
judicial officers in the exercise of their judicial functions.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Kauling’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 2), DISMISSES this case for failure to state a claim and seeking monetary
damages against an immune defendant, and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 21, 2014
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
2