Tierney v. Connaghan

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: April 16, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00273
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

JAMES L. TIERNEY, III,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20-CV-273-NJR

PATRICK J. CONNAGHAN and JILL M. HANLEY,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge: This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Plaintiff James L. Tierney, III (Doc. 3). Tierney filed a pro se civil rights complaint on March 13, 2020, claiming that Defendants Patrick Connaghan, Clerk of the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, and Jill Hanley, Public Administrator, violated his civil rights in relation to his legal guardianship proceedings in the State of Missouri (Doc. 2). More specifically, Tierney claims that he has been a lifelong citizen of Illinois and, therefore, he “should not have been adjudicated in the State of Missouri because it is an improper venue and lack[s] jurisdiction.” (Id.). He also asserts that Defendants have violated his constitutional rights by taking his freedom to decide where he wants to live, to spend his Social Security check, and to come and go as he pleases (Id.). In conjunction with his complaint, Tierney moves to proceed in federal court without prepayment of the required filing fees (Doc. 3). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a federal court is authorized to permit an indigent party to commence a civil action without prepaying the required fees if the party submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets he or she possesses and that

demonstrates the party is unable to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Complete destitution is not required to proceed in forma pauperis; an affidavit demonstrating that the plaintiff cannot, because of his poverty, provide himself with the necessities of life is sufficient. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). Under Section 1915(e)(2), the Court must also screen the indigent plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss the complaint if it is clearly frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

claim, or is a claim for money damages against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003) (“District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense.”). Thus, resolution of the motion to proceed IFP requires the undersigned to review the allegations of the complaint.

In reviewing the complaint, the undersigned is aware that courts construe pro se claims generously. Buechel v. United States, 746 F.3d 753, 758 (7th Cir. 2014). Furthermore, the Court must accept the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in the plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, this case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Though presented as a civil rights case, Tierney appears to be contesting the 2013 appointment of a limited guardian due to his partial incapacity by the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the subsequent denials of his Petitions for Restoration, and/or the authority vested in the limited guardian to make medical and residential placement decisions on his behalf.1 On August 23, 2018, Defendant Jill Hanley was named Tierney’s limited guardian.

At least two doctrines prohibit this Court from reviewing these decisions. First, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which recognizes that lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review state-court judgments, precludes this Court from adjudicating Tierney’s claims regarding the management of his affairs. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); M.G.S. ex rel. Sykes v. Toerpe, No. 11 C 07934, 2012 WL 3235240, at *2–3

(N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2012). Even though Tierney asserts his civil rights were violated by Defendants’ decisions, his claims are “inextricably intertwined with the state court adjudication of disability and its attendant consequences,” and, thus, this Court is barred from reviewing them. Sykes, 2012 WL 3235240, at *2–3. Second, even if the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply, Tierney’s claims would

be barred by the probate exception to federal jurisdiction. Struck v. Cook Cty. Pub. Guardian, 508 F.3d 858, 860 (7th Cir. 2007). In Struck, the Seventh Circuit explained that the probate exception “precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose of property that is in the custody of a state probate court.” Id. That is because probate matters are in rem in nature. Id. “That is, they are fights over . . . a person in the court’s control. And a

court other than the one that controls the res . . . should not be permitted to elbow its way

1 In the Estate of James Tierney, III , Estate No. 1322-PR00911 (St. Louis City Cir. Ct.); Guar. Bank v. Chubb Corp., 538 F.3d 587, 591 (7th Cir. 2008) (“[A] court is of course entitled to take judicial notice of judicial proceedings.”). into sucha fight.” Id.; Sykes, 2012 WL 3235240, at *3 (“as unappealing as it sounds applied to a living person, [he] is the res in an in-rem proceeding —the contested guardianship case”). Moreover, state courts are proficient in probate matters and have “evolved procedures tailored to them,” even employing specialized staff to provide ongoing managerial functions that Article III courts are simply not equipped to handle. Id. In this case, like in Struck, the res —Tierney —is in the partial control of the limited guardian appointed by the state court (Defendant Hanley), and decisions concerning the administration of his affairs are Defendant Hanley’s responsibility. It is the role of the Probate Division of the St. Louis City Circuit Court—not this Court—to supervise that administration. For these reasons, the Complaint filed by Plaintiff James L. Tierney, III, is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tierney’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3), Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 4), and Motion for Service of Process at the Government’s Expense (Doc. 5) are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 16, 2020 Tahoma? NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4