LLOYD v. 18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS et al
Filing
10
ENTRY DISMISSING ACTION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT: The Court gave notice to Loyd regarding the jurisdictional deficiencies of his initial Complaint and provided him with an opportunity to respond. See Aljabri v. Holder, 745 F.3d 816, 8 19 (7th Cir. 2014). Because Loyd has failed to cure the deficiencies of his initial Complaint, for the reasons discussed in the screening Entry, this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Final judgment consistent with this Entry will be issued under separate order. See Order. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/8/2024.(Copy mailed to Plaintiff.) (LF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DARRIN K. LOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.
18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF
DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT CLERK OF
DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
DUPAGE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY,
DUPAGE COUNTY SHERIFF (of Illinois),
SECRETARY OF STATE (of Illinois),
ILLINOIS SECRETARY OF STATE,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE
AND FAMILY SERVICES, DIVISION OF
CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:24-cv-00426-TWP-TAB
ENTRY DISMISSING ACTION AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
In the Entry of April 2, 2024, the Court screened pro se Plaintiff Darrin K. Loyd's ("Loyd")
Complaint and explained that it is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) because of a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (Dkt. 8).
Specifically, the Court explained that the claims in the initial Complaint were barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine, by the doctrines of prosecutorial and judicial immunity, and because certain
named defendants are not suable under Section 1983. The Court gave Loyd an opportunity to
amend his Complaint no later than May 3, 2024, and show cause why this case should not be
dismissed because of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
On May 2, 2024, Loyd filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 9). The Amended Complaint is
similarly deficient and fails to address or cure the problems of the initial Complaint by continuing
to fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In his Amended Complaint, Loyd
continues to complain of alleged deficiencies and misconduct related to underlying state court
cases related to Loyd's child support obligations, and the consequences of his nonpayment of child
support, and Loyd continues to request that the Court set aside the judgments rendered in those
state court cases (Dkt. 9). As the Court explained in its April 2, 2024 Entry, the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine precludes lower federal courts, including this Court, from exercising jurisdiction over
claims seeking the review of state court judgments or over claims "inextricably intertwined" with
state court determinations. See, e.g., Long v. Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir.
1999). "The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal jurisdiction over these claims because, no
matter how erroneous or unconstitutional the state court judgment may be, the Supreme Court of
the United States is the only federal court that could have jurisdiction to review a state court
judgment." Remer v. Burlington Area Sch. Dist., 205 F.3d 990, 996 (7th Cir. 2000). Loyd's
Amended Complaint continues to assert claims barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The
Amended Complaint also continues to assert claims against defendants that are immune from
liability pursuant to the doctrines of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity and defendants
that are not suable under Section 1983. This action therefore must be dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction.
The Court gave notice to Loyd regarding the jurisdictional deficiencies of his initial
Complaint and provided him with an opportunity to respond. See Aljabri v. Holder, 745 F.3d 816,
819 (7th Cir. 2014). Because Loyd has failed to cure the deficiencies of his initial Complaint, for
the reasons discussed in the screening Entry, this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Final judgment consistent with this Entry will be issued under separate
order.
2
SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/8/2024
Distribution:
DARRIN K. LOYD
P.O. Box 307
Fishers, IN 46038
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?