United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
AMY J. ST. EVE, District Judge.
The Court grants Defendants' motions to dismiss [17, 23, 24] with prejudice and dismisses this lawsuit in its entirety. All future hearing dates are stricken. Civil case terminated.
On February 28, 2014, pro se Plaintiff Aleks Rechanik filed a ten-count Complaint alleging constitutional violations against numerous Illinois state court judges, the Village of Zurich's attorney, and the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the 19th Judicial Circuit. See 42 U.S.C. §1983. Before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motions to dismiss and dismisses this lawsuit in its entirety.
I. Standard Under 12(b)(1)
The standard the Court employs on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction depends on the purpose of the motion. See Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 572 F.3d 440, 443-44 (7th Cir. 2009); United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chem. Co., 322 F.3d 942, 946 (7th Cir. 2003) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Minn-Chem., Inc. v. Agrium, Inc., 683 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2012). If a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the allegations regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Apex Digital, 572 F.3d at 443-44; United Phosphorus, 322 F.3d at 946. If, however, the defendant denies or controverts the truth of the jurisdictional allegations, the Court may look beyond the pleadings and view any evidence submitted to determine if subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Apex Digital, 572 F.3d at 443-44; United Phosphorus, 322 F.3d at 946. "Where jurisdiction is in question, the party asserting a right to a federal forum has the burden of proof, regardless of who raises the jurisdictional challenge." Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 2008).
II. Standard Under Rule 12(b)(6)
"A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted." Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 637 (7th Cir. 2012). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain statement under Rule 8(a)(2) must "give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation omitted). Under the federal notice pleading standards, a plaintiff's "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Put differently, a "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint under the plausibility standard, [courts] accept the well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true." Alam v. Miller Brewing Co., 709 F.3d 662, 665-66 (7th Cir. 2013). When ruling on motions to dismiss, courts may also consider documents attached to the pleadings without converting the motion into a motion summary judgment, as long as the documents are referred to in the complaint and central to the plaintiff's claims. See Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743, 745 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012).
Construing Plaintiff's pro se allegations liberally, Ambrose v. Roeckeman, 749 F.3d 615, 618 (7th Cir. 2014), the present lawsuit arose from a citation for a violation of the Village of Lake Zurich's ("Village") building code. (R. 1, Compl. ¶ 23.) During these state court proceedings, Plaintiff petitioned the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Lake County, Illinois to mandate the Village to provide proof of the citation's validity arguing that the citation proceedings were illegal. ( Id. ¶¶ 24-30.) After the Circuit Court conducted a hearing in May 2012, the Circuit Court found in favor of the Village. ( Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff then filed a motion for leave to file a counterclaim and motion for reconsideration that the Circuit Court denied in November 2012. ( Id. ¶ 32.) On February 1, 2013, the Circuit Court entered judgment in favor of the Village in the amount of $439.00. ( Id. ¶ 34.)
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and then an appellate brief in the Second District of the Illinois Appellate Court arguing that there were numerous defects in the Circuit Court's order ( Id. ¶¶ 33, 35, 39.) On June 14, 2013, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the Circuit Court. ( Id. ¶ 40.) On July 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing en banc to the Illinois Appellate Court, that the court denied on July 11, 2013. ( Id. ¶¶ 44, 45.) Plaintiff then filed a pro se petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Illinois on August 12, 2013, that the Supreme Court denied on November 27, 2013. ( Id. ¶¶ 46, 47.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider to the Supreme Court on December 28, 2013, that the Supreme Court denied on January 13, 2014. ( Id. ¶¶ 48, 40.)
On January 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Separate and Supplemental Opinions from All Justices of the Court's January 13, 2014 Order Denying Reconsideration." ( Id. ¶ 50). The Clerk of the Supreme Court, Defendant Carolyn Taft Grosboll, returned Plaintiff's motion with a letter stating that the Supreme Court is not required to issue an opinion with every order that it issues. ( Id. )
Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit on February 28, 2014. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Fourteenth Amendment due process claims relating to the building code violation and its ...