United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
suit, brought by Nathaniel Satterfield, Jr., against what
appear to be the successors to the mortgagor of the home
previously owned by his mother and sister, was preceded by
two closely related state court suits. The first was the
mortgagor's successful foreclosure suit against
Satterfield's mother and sister. See Beneficial Ill.,
Inc. v. Satterfield, 2013 IL App (1st) 122470-U ( Ill.
App. 2013) (reproduced at Doc. 25-1), app. denied, 3
N.E.3d 794 (Ill. 2014); see also Docs. 23-1, 23-2
(trial court orders). The second was Satterfield's own
suit against entities related to the mortgagor-and also that
partially overlap with or are closely related to Defendants
here-alleging various misdeeds related to efforts to take
possession of the property foreclosed in the first suit.
See Satterfield v. Beneficial Financial I Inc., 2016
IL App (1st) 151483-U ( Ill. App. 2016) (reproduced at Doc.
25-3), app. denied, 60 N.E.3d 882 (Ill. 2016),
cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 1076 (2017), reh'g
denied, 137 S.Ct. 1617 (2017).
case, brought about one week after the United States Supreme
Court denied his petition for rehearing of its denial of his
certiorari petition seeking review of the state appellate
court's judgment in his state court suit, Satterfield
once again complains of actions taken during the course of
the foreclosure proceedings and thereafter. This court
dismissed without prejudice the initial complaint; the
federal claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim
and, given the lack of diversity, the state law claims were
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3). Doc. 5. The court gave Satterfield a chance to
file an amended complaint, which he did. Doc. 7. Defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Doc. 22.
the amended complaint's claims seek review of, or allege
harm arising from, the state court's foreclosure
judgment; the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives this
court of subject matter jurisdiction over those claims.
See Nora v. Residential Funding Co., 543 F.
App'x 601, 602 (7th Cir. 2013); Taylor v. Fed.
Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 374 F.3d 529, 532 (7th Cir.
2004); Di Cosola v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2011 WL
4808188, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2011). Other of the
amended complaint's claims seek to re-litigate claims
(some of the legal theories changed, but the underlying
factual allegations are the same) that were dismissed in
Satterfield's state court suit; those claims fail on the
merits on preclusion grounds. See Walczak v. Chi. Bd. of
Educ., 739 F.3d 1013, 1016-17 (7th Cir. 2014);
Easley v. Russ, 247 F. App'x 823, 826-27 (7th
Cir. 2007); Adair v. Sherman, 230 F.3d 890, 893 (7th
other of the amended complaint's federal claims pertain
to conduct that post-dated the judgments entered in the state
court suits. Those claims are dismissed on the merits.
Satterfield has no claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
1985, or 1986 because Defendants are not state actors and the
amended complaint does not come close to alleging the kind of
concerted conduct between private and public actors that
could support such claims against private actors. See
Holm v. Clark, 2012 WL 1015988, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar.
23, 2012). And while Plaintiff mentions in passing a pastiche
of other federal statutes, Doc. 7 at ¶ 145, none are
implicated by his allegations, and his opposition brief does
not cogently argue that he has any claim under those
statutes, so any such claims are forfeited. See
Firestone Fin. Corp. v. Meyer, 796 F.3d 822, 825 (7th
Cir. 2015) (“[A] party generally forfeits an
argument or issue not raised in response to a motion to
dismiss.”); G & S Holdings LLC v. Cont'l
Cas. Co., 697 F.3d 534, 538 (7th Cir. 2012) (“We
have repeatedly held that a party waives an argument by
failing to make it before the district court.”);
Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602, 614-15 (7th Cir.
2005) (holding that where the plaintiff “did not
present legal arguments or cite relevant authority to
substantiate [his] claim in responding to defendants'
motion to dismiss, ” his “claim has been
waived”); Stransky v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 51
F.3d 1329, 1335 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[W]hen presented
with a motion to dismiss, the non-moving party must proffer
some legal basis to support his cause of action. The federal
courts will not invent legal arguments for litigants.”)
(internal citations omitted).
state law claims that Satterfield might have pertaining to
conduct post-dating the judgments entered in the state court
suits are dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Satterfield and Defendant HSBC Finance Corporation are
Illinois citizens, so there is no diversity jurisdiction over
those claims. The only jurisdiction arises under §
1367(a), which the court relinquishes under § 1367(c)(3)
given the case's early ...