Burris v. Ramey

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for lack of jurisdiction and DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 1/23/2018. (csd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

VERNELL BURRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-094-DRH-SCW

DAN RAMEY,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 2). In this action, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se , alleges the judgment
handed down from the Marion County Court in the original case did incorrectly
determine that the Defendant was granted immunity under Illinois Local
Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/1101.1). He now appeals to this Court after the Marion County Court accepted
Defendant’s motion to dismiss and rendered judgment against the Plaintiff.

Page 1 of 3

For plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to
“dismiss the case at any time” upon determining that the complaint is frivolous or
fails to state a claim. See 28 USC § 1915(e)(2). After reviewing Plaintiff’s
pleadings, the Court finds that the complaint does not survive § 1915(e)(2) review.
Despite Plaintiff’s mentioning of the 14th Amendment and the United States
Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act, the issue at hand arises not out of federal law or
the Constitution that would provide federal jurisdiction, but a dispute over city
budgetary decisions. Plaintiff’s complaint that the city of Centralia failed to hire
sufficient police officers to ensure his safety does not include a federal question
and thus the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case. Beyond that, it is unclear
whether Plaintiff has even alleged sufficient standing to bring this claim
considering his reliance on tax payer standing or whether the sought result would
remedy the injuries allegedly suffered due to a lack of police presence.
Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to appeal a state court decision in federal court,
outside the traditional bounds of procedure. The Supreme Court has made it
clear that lower federal courts should not sit in direct review of state court
decisions unless Congress has authorized such relief specifically. See District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). With this in mind,
no authorization exists for a case such as the Plaintiff presents and he is required
to find a state court remedy.

Page 2 of 3

Accordingly, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff’s
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Further, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s
motion to proceed without prepaying fees or costs (Doc. 2). The Clerk is
DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Plaintiff is not, however, relieved of the
obligation to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the filing fee no later
than February 15, 2018.

Judge Herndon
2018.01.23
14:27:43 -06'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3