Rogers v. Clerk of Court

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

WILLIE ROGERS

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:25-CV-166 DRL-SJF

CLERK OF COURT, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, SOUTH BEND DIVISION and CLERK OF COURT, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, MISHAWAKA DIVISION,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER The court dismissed Willie Rogers’s suit, denied his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and denied his motion for a preliminary injunction after determining his complaint didn’t meet federal pleading standards and any amendment would be futile. Mr. Rogers then filed a motion requesting the court reconsider its judgment and leave to amend his complaint. The court denies the motion. Mr. Rogers is a defendant in a collections case in Indiana state court. He alleges he received deficient notice of a hearing, which led to him missing the hearing and the court then entering default judgment against him. He now seeks a declaratory judgment that his procedural due process rights were violated under the Fourteenth Amendment and prospective injunctive relief ordering the state courts to implement proper and adequate notice procedures going forward. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine still precludes the court’s review. Mr. Rogers seeks relief from injury caused by an Indiana state court judgment, exactly the type of claim the doctrine bars. Sykes v. Cook Cnty. Cir. Ct. Prob. Div., 837 F.3d 736, 742 (7th Cir. 2016). Though here he alleges his constitutional rights were violated, the relief he seeks from this court would necessarily invalidate the state court’s judgment, which this court can’t do. Any remedy he might seek on this front must be to the state appellate courts.

Any amendment would be futile. Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009). This court cannot hear his claims. Accordingly, the court DENIES the motion to reconsider and grant leave to amend [7]. SO ORDERED. March 21, 2025 s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court