United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
MYERSCOUGH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint (d/e 21, 25). Defendants argue that the Amended
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and that
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
filed the Initial Complaint on December 26, 2017. On February
26, 2018, Plaintiff sought leave to file her Amended
Complaint. On March 2, 2018, the Court granted the request
and docketed the Amended Complaint (d/e 24).
Amended Complaint seeks liability against the State of
Illinois, the Illinois Department of Children and Family
Services (DCFS), Governor Bruce Rauner, Assistant State's
Attorney Kendra Hansel, State's Attorney John Milhiser,
and DCFS Director Beverly Walker.
allegations in the Amended Complaint and the reasonable
inferences made therefrom establish that on July 27, 2016,
Defendants removed Plaintiff's two children, Atalia
Turner and Zimri Turner, from her custody. The Amended
Complaint brings three claims. Claim 1 is for illegal search
and seizure by the Springfield Police Department and DCFS.
Claim 2 includes two claims: violation of Plaintiff's Due
Process rights and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. Claim 3 alleges that Defendants have illegally
seized Plaintiff's property (Atalia and Zimri Turner).
The Amended Complaint seeks equitable relief in the form of
return of the children to Plaintiff's custody or to that
of a relative. Plaintiff also seeks information as to the
whereabouts and contact information of the children. The
Amended Complaint also prays for monetary relief in the form
of damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages, for a
total of $90, 000, 000.
ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts all
well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and
construes all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff.
Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir.
survive a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim for relief, the
complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction and of the claim
showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a)(1); Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807
F.3d 169, 173 (7th Cir. 2015).
pro se complaints are construed liberally by the Court and
held to a “less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Perez v.
Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015); see
also Curtis v. Bembenek, 48 F.3d 281, 283 (7th Cir.
1995) (noting that “in reviewing a pro se complaint, we
must employ standards less stringent than if the complaint
had been drafted by counsel”).
the Court may consider documents attached as exhibits to the
complaint when ruling on a motion to dismiss. Ctrs. v.
Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir.
2005); Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c) (“A copy of a written
instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is part of the
pleading for all purposes.”). The Court may also
consider matters of public record in determining whether the
complaint's allegations are sufficient to meet this
standard. Olson v. Champaign Cnty., Ill., 784 F.3d
1093, 1096 n.1 (7th Cir. 2015).
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Court has diversity subject matter jurisdiction over
“all civil actions where the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
this leniency, construing the Amended Complaint favorably to
Plaintiff, and taking all factual allegations in the Amended
Complaint as true, the Court concludes that the Amended