United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
ST. EVE United States District Court Judge
Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss as to all
Defendants and dismisses this lawsuit in its entirety. .
All pending dates and deadlines are stricken. Civil case
March 27, 2017, pro se Plaintiff David Mayle filed the
present First Amended Complaint against David Orr, in his
official capacity as the Cook County Clerk of Courts; Lisa
Madigan, in her official capacity as Attorney General of
Illinois; Anita Alvarez, in her official capacity as Cook
County State's Attorney; and Bruce Rauner, in his official
capacity as Illinois' Governor, challenging Illinois'
bigamy, adultery, and fornication statutes under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments. See 28 U.S.C. §
1331; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is
Defendants' motion to dismiss. For the following reasons,
the Court grants Defendants' motion. The Court dismisses
this lawsuit in its entirety as to all Defendants because pro
se Plaintiff's challenge to Illinois' bigamy statute
is foreclosed by well-established Supreme Court authority and
he does not have standing to challenge Illinois'
fornication and adultery statutes.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) challenges the viability of a complaint by arguing
that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.” Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers,
Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014). 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). Under the federal
pleading standards, a plaintiff's “factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d
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). When determining the sufficiency of a
complaint under the plausibility standard, courts must
“accept all well-pleaded facts as true and draw
reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs' favor.”
Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d 561, 564 (7th
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
standing implicates the Court's subject matter
jurisdiction, the Court reviews pro se Plaintiff's
standing under Rule 12(b)(1). See Lardas v. Grcic,
847 F.3d 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2017). When assessing whether a
plaintiff has factual standing, the Court “may look
beyond the pleadings and view any evidence submitted to
determine if subject matter jurisdiction exists.”
Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169, 173 (7th Cir.
2015). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the
burden of establishing the required elements of standing.
See Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S.Ct.
1138, 1148 (2013).
his pro se allegations liberally, see Parker v. Four
Seasons Hotels, Ltd., 845 F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 2017),
Plaintiff is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
challenging the State of Illinois' statutes criminalizing
adultery, fornication, and bigamy. More specifically,
Plaintiff, a resident of Chicago, alleges that he follows the
religious philosophies of Satanism and Thelema. (R. 21, First
Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) He further alleges that he intends to
marry more than one person because his religious beliefs
about relationships and intimacy do not preclude adultery.
(Id. ¶¶ 9, 12.) Plaintiff explains that
Satanism's precepts include living according to one's
natural instincts and pursuing rational self-interest and
that adherents of Satanism accept all forms of human sexual
expression between consenting adults. (Id. ¶
14.) Also, Plaintiff maintains that the Law of Thelema is a
philosophical, mystical, and religious system and that
Thelemites are dedicated to seeking their true path in this
life. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 16.) Plaintiff contends
that the high priests of Thelema developed sexual rituals
emphasizing that sex is a sacrament and the supreme magical
power in the universe. (Id. ¶ 17.) Thus,
Plaintiff asserts that under the laws of the State of
Illinois, if he engages in sex magic in accord with his
faith, he would be in violation of laws against adultery,
fornication, and bigamy. (Id. ¶¶ 17-22.)
Plaintiff states that he “reasonably fears he may be
subjected to criminal penalties, including jail time”
if he follows his beliefs. (Id. ¶ 20.)