Henry v. Coughlan et al
| Illinois Central District Court | |
| Judge: | Colleen R Lawless |
| Referred: | Karen L Mcnaught |
| Case #: | 3:22-cv-03239 |
| Nature of Suit | 950 Other Statutes - Constitutionality of State Statutes |
| Cause | 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Case Filed: | Nov 16, 2022 |
| Terminated: | Jun 22, 2023 |
| Last checked: Monday May 15, 2023 6:13 AM CDT |
|
Defendant
Mary Ellen Coughlan
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Timothy C. Evans
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Judge Sophia Hall
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Michael B Hyman
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Judge Kerry M Kennedy
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Terrance J Levin
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Judge Mary Kathleen McHugh
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Judge Thomas W Murphy
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Judge Louis Michael Nixon
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Aurelia Pucinski
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Judge Allen P Walker
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Michael Henry
13233 Bundoran Court
Orland Park, IL 60462 |
| Docket last updated: 11 hours ago |
| Thursday, June 06, 2024 | ||
| 26 | 26
appeal
USCA Order
Fri 06/07 7:51 AM
ORDER of USCA: Unless and until Henry pays all outstanding filing fees and sanctions, the clerks of all federal courts in this circuit are directed to return unfiled any papers submitted either directly or indirectly by him or on his behalf. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. (JPL) |
|
| Wednesday, May 15, 2024 | ||
| 25 | 25
appeal
USCA Mandate
Wed 05/15 2:38 PM
MANDATE of USCA as to20 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Henry. The appeal is dismissed, with costs. SEE WRITTEN MANDATE. (JPL) |
|
| Friday, April 26, 2024 | ||
| 24 | 24
appeal
USCA Order
Fri 04/26 4:57 PM
ORDER of USCA as to20 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Henry: Plaintiff-Appellant filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on April 10,2024. No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition forrehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing is therefore DENIED. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. (MJC) |
|
| Wednesday, August 02, 2023 | ||
|
appeal
USCA Appeal Fees
Wed 08/02 1:20 PM
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 505 receipt number 300000757 re20 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Henry. (JPL) |
||
| Friday, July 21, 2023 | ||
| 23 | 23
appeal
USCA Notice of Docketing ROA
Fri 07/21 11:09 AM
NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re20 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Henry. USCA Case Number 23-2408 HS) |
|
|
Att: 1
Notice Part 2,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Notice Part 3
|
||
| Monday, July 17, 2023 | ||
| 22 | 22
appeal
Short Record of Appeal Sent to USCA
Wed 07/19 1:00 PM
Short Record of Appeal Sent to US Court of Appeals re20 Notice of Appeal. (HS) |
|
| 21 | 21
service
Certificate of Service
Wed 07/19 12:44 PM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michael Henry re20 Notice of Appeal. (HS) Modified on 7/19/2023 (HS) |
|
| 20 | 20
appeal
Notice of Appeal
Wed 07/19 12:43 PM
NOTICE OF APPEAL as to10 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion to Transfer Case by Michael Henry. (HS) Modified on 7/19/2023 (HS) |
|
| Wednesday, July 12, 2023 | ||
|
order
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on Motion for Recusal Order on Motion for Leave to File Order on Motion to Reopen Case
Wed 07/12 10:33 AM
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colleen R. Lawless on 7/12/2023: Before this Court is Plaintiff Michael Henry's Motion for Recusal of Judge16 . The basis for recusal is "[t]he failure of the Judge in this case to review the underlying case." The Court notes that this motion was filed after a ruling was issued granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and does not contain an affidavit as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 144. As a general rule, orders by the Court, without more, are not proper grounds for recusal. In Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994), the Supreme Court stated that "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion." Id. at 555, citing United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966). According to the Liteky Court, "opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Id. Here, the motion is based solely on prior rulings that Plaintiff perceives as adverse. This does not satisfy the requirements for disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). As such, Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal is DENIED.Additionally, Plaintiff filed the following motions: (1) Motion for Clarification12 ; (2) Second Motion for Clarification14 ; (3) Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint by Plaintiff17 ; (4) Motion for Issuance of Subpoena18 ; and (5) Motion for Reinstatement of Case19 . The Court will address each motion in turn. In his first Motion for Clarification12 , Plaintiff asks this Court to "clarify its ruling as it failed to address the Constitutionality issue of the State of Illinois Courts failing to adhere to Federal Court Pleading Standards when invoking Federal law in a State Court Proceeding." In his Second Motion for Clarification14 , the Plaintiff asks this Court to review the sufficiency of the pleadings in the State Court proceedings. To be sure, the Court did not address the issue of whether the State Court appropriately applied federal law or whether the pleadings were sufficient because the Younger abstention doctrine prohibits federal courts from intervening in ongoing state proceedings. The judgment Plaintiff seeks in this Court is necessarily aimed at controlling or preventing the occurrence of specific events that might take place during the state proceedings, making the Younger abstention doctrine applicable. Thus, as noted, Plaintiff's claims for review are more appropriately resolved in the underlying state case and Illinois Appellate Court. For those reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification12 and Second Motion for Clarification14 are DENIED.Plaintiff's Motion to File an Amended Complaint17 requests an opportunity to supplement the record with additional support for his claim that Judge Murphy was biased and did not correctly apply federal law. Leave to amend pleadings generally should be liberally granted; however, leave to amend should be denied if amendment would be futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Scheurich v. Champaign Cty Sheriff's Office, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194376. In the similar case of Geier v. Missouri Ethics Commission, 715 F.3d 674, 678 (8th Cir. 2013), the District Court dismissed the entire action based on the Younger abstention doctrine. Four days later, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint. Id. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision, noting that because the entire case had been dismissed before the plaintiff moved to amend, granting leave to amend would have been improper. Id., citing Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). The Eighth Circuit went on to state that even if the action had not been completely dismissed, the amendment would have been futile, so the dismissal was proper. Id. Similarly, in the instant case, the original complaint was dismissed with prejudice and the proposed amended complaint does not seek to address any concerns relating to the Younger abstention doctrine or the applicability of judicial immunity. Thus, the proposed amendments to the complaint would be futile. Therefore, the Motion to File an Amended Complaint17 is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Subpoena18 is also DENIED as moot.Finally, Plaintiff's Motion for Reinstatement of Case19 argues that the matter should be reinstated as allowing discovery to proceed in the State Court case would violate Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. In Illinois, "once a lawsuit has been filed, and all parties have appeared, the pretrial search for matters relevant to the pending litigation is controlled by discovery rules promulgated" by the Illinois Supreme Court. Bruske v. Arnold, 44 Ill. 2d 132, 135 (1969). Under the Illinois Constitution, the Illinois Supreme Court "retains primary constitutional authority over court procedure." Kunkel v. Walton, 179 Ill. 2d 519, 528 (1998). Thus, the proper method for challenging the constitutionality of discovery orders is through the Illinois Appellate process. See Kaull v. Kaull, 2014 IL App (2d) 130175, 33. For that reason, Plaintiff's Motion for Reinstatement of Case19 is DENIED.(HS) |
||
| Wednesday, July 05, 2023 | ||
| 19 | 19
motion
Reopen Case
Wed 07/05 9:44 AM
MOTION for Reinstatement of Case by Plaintiff Michael Henry. Responses due by 7/19/2023(JJK) |
|
|
Att: 1
Certificate of Service
|
||
| 18 | 18
motion
Miscellaneous Relief
Wed 07/05 9:38 AM
MOTION for Issuance of Subpoena by Plaintiff Michael Henry. Responses due by 7/19/2023 (JJK) |
|
| 17 | 17
motion
Leave to File Document
Wed 07/05 9:35 AM
MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Michael Henry. Responses due by 7/19/2023(JJK) |
|
|
Att: 1
Certificate of Service
|
||
| Monday, July 03, 2023 | ||
| 16 | 16
motion
Recusal
Mon 07/03 11:12 AM
MOTION for Recusal of Judge Murphy by Plaintiff Michael Henry. Responses due by 7/17/2023(JJK) |
|
|
Att: 1
Proof/Certificate of Service
|
||
| Wednesday, June 28, 2023 | ||
| 15 | 15
service
Certificate of Service
Wed 06/28 10:10 AM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michael Henry re14 MOTION re10 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction. (HS) |
|
| 14 | 14
motion
Miscellaneous Relief
Wed 06/28 10:09 AM
SECOND MOTION for Clarification re10 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, by Plaintiff Michael Henry. Responses due by 7/12/2023.(HS) |
|
| Tuesday, June 27, 2023 | ||
| 13 | 13
service
Certificate of Service
Wed 06/28 8:53 AM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michael Henry re12 MOTION re9 Notice Rule 12(C) entered. (HS) Modified on 6/28/2023 to correct the date filed to 6/27/2023 (JJK) |
|
| 12 | 12
motion
Miscellaneous Relief
Wed 06/28 8:52 AM
MOTION for Clarification re9 Notice Rule 12(C) entered by Plaintiff Michael Henry. Responses due by 7/12/2023.(HS) Modified on 6/28/2023 to correct the date filed to 6/27/2023 (JJK) |
|
| Thursday, June 22, 2023 | ||
| 11 | 11
misc
Judgment
Thu 06/22 5:01 PM
JUDGMENT entered. (HS) |
|
| 10 | 10
15
pgs
order
Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction Order on Motion to Transfer Case
Thu 06/22 4:56 PM
ORDER AND OPINION entered by Judge Colleen R. Lawless on 6/22/2023. Granting6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. (HS) |
|
| Friday, March 17, 2023 | ||
|
order
Order Reassigning Case to Judge Lawless
Fri 03/17 3:16 PM
TEXT ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT: This case and the corresponding hearings are reassigned to Judge Colleen R. Lawless for further proceedings due to her recent appointment as U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois. Entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on 3/17/2023. (JMB) |
||
| Thursday, December 22, 2022 | ||
| 9 | 9
notice
Notice Rule 12(C) entered
Fri 12/23 10:20 AM
RULE 12(C) NOTICE entered as to the filing of6 MOTION to Dismiss. (DM) |
|
|
order
Order
Thu 12/22 2:49 PM
TEXT ORDER: The Clerk is directed to seal the document labeled Exhibit I to Plaintiff's Response (d/e [7-1]). Entered by Magistrate Judge Karen L. McNaught on 12/22/2022. (MAS) |
||
| Wednesday, December 21, 2022 | ||
| 8 | 8
service
Certificate of Service
Wed 12/21 9:51 PM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michael Henry re7 Memorandum in Response. (DM) |
|
| 7 | 7
respm
Response to Motion/Petition
Wed 12/21 9:49 PM
MEMORANDUM in RESPONSE to Defendants6 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION to Transfer Case to the Middle District of Florida Jacksonville District filed by Plaintiff Michael Henry.(DM) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit I,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit II,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Exhibit III
|
||
| Tuesday, December 20, 2022 | ||
| 6 | 6
motion
Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction Transfer Case
Tue 12/20 1:21 PM
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or , MOTION to Transfer Case by Defendants Mary Ellen Coughlan, Timothy C. Evans, Sophia Hall, Michael B Hyman, Kerry M Kennedy, Terrance J Levin, Mary Kathleen McHugh, Thomas W Murphy, Louis Michael Nixon, Aurelia Pucinski, Mary Jane Theis, Allen P Walker, E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. Responses due by 1/3/2023 (Tichy, David) |
|
| 5 | 5
notice
Notice of Appearance of Attorney
Tue 12/20 1:17 PM
NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by David Tichy on behalf of Mary Ellen Coughlan, Timothy C. Evans, Sophia Hall, Michael B Hyman, Kerry M Kennedy, Terrance J Levin, Mary Kathleen McHugh, Thomas W Murphy, Louis Michael Nixon, Aurelia Pucinski, Mary Jane Theis, Allen P Walker, E. Kenneth Wright, Jr (Tichy, David) |
|
| Wednesday, December 07, 2022 | ||
| 4 | 4
notice
Certificate of Service/Counsel
Wed 12/07 6:34 PM
Proof of Service as to Appellate Court Judge Mary Ellen Coughlin, Chief Judge Timothy Evans, Appellate Court Judge Aurelia Puchinski, Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis, Appellate Court Judge Terrance J. Levin, and Appellate Court Judge Michael B. Hyman by Michael Henry. (DM) (DM) |
|
|
Att: 1
(12/7/2022) Envelope
|
||
| Monday, December 05, 2022 | ||
| 3 | 3
notice
Certificate of Service/Counsel
Wed 12/07 6:31 PM
Proof of Service (Chief Judge Timothy Evans) by Michael Henry. (DM) |
|
| Thursday, November 17, 2022 | ||
| 2 | 2
service
Summons Issued
Thu 11/17 12:58 PM
Summons Issued as to Appellate Court Judge Mary Ellen Coughlan; Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans; Judge Sophia Hall; Appellate Court Judge Michael B Hyman; Judge Kerry M Kennedy; Appellate Court Judge Terrance J Levin; Judge Mary Kathleen McHugh; Judge Thomas W Murphy; Judge Louis Michael Nixon; Appellate Court Judge Aurelia Pucinski; Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis; Judge Allen P Walker and Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. and forwarded via USPS to Plaintiff Michael Henry for effectuation of service. (MAS) |
|
| Wednesday, November 16, 2022 | ||
| 1 | 1
cmp
Complaint
Wed 11/16 4:47 PM
COMPLAINT against Appellate Court Judge Mary Ellen Coughlan; Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans; Judge Sophia Hall; Appellate Court Judge Michael B Hyman; Judge Kerry M Kennedy; Appellate Court Judge Terrance J Levin; Judge Mary Kathleen McHugh; Judge Thomas W Murphy; Judge Louis Michael Nixon; Appellate Court Judge Aurelia Pucinski; Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis; Judge Allen P Walker and Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr, filed by Michael Henry. (Filing fee of $402.00 paid, receipt # 300000252)(MAS) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit 1,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit 2,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Exhibit 3,
|
||
|
Att: 4
Defendants' List,
|
||
|
Att: 5
Civil Cover Sheet
|
||