« Indiana Law - Lake County appears to be the national poster-child for absentee vote fraud | Main | Indiana Decisions - Same-sex marriage case still being pondered by Court of Appeals panel »

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Indiana Decisions - [Updated] 7th Circuit posts four rulings

Note: The CA added three more cases to its site to go along with the first, which I had blogged here earlier today.

Frederiksen, Michell v. Caneva, Ron (ND Ill.)

Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. A state court authorized the demolition of plaintiffs’ building in Lockport, Illinois. Lockport v. Talano, 318 Ill. App. 3d 1241, 789 N.E.2d 944 (3d Dist. 2000) (unpublished). The ex-owners have filed eight federal suits under 42 U.S.C. §1983 contesting the condemnation and associated steps, such as inspections. We held in the first of these suits that federal courts lack jurisdiction, because only the Supreme Court of the United States may review decisions of state courts in civil litigation. See Talano v. Lockport, No. 00-1697 (7th Cir. Apr. 26, 2001) (unpublished order relying on Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)). That did not stop the ex-owners. Surprisingly, none of the more recent seven suits has ended in sanctions for vexatious litigation. Perhaps that is because the federal defendants have taken to ignoring them and thus incur few costs; in this appeal only one of the many defendants bothered to file a brief. * * *

Plaintiffs’ appellate brief reveals that this is frivolous and vexatious litigation. Legal disputes must be resolved in a single proceeding. Nine suits—one in state court, eight in federal court—is eight too many. We will issue an order under Rule 38 directing them to show cause why they should not be sanctioned. [cites omitted] The reason why we are issuing a published opinion, however, is to clean up an inconsistency in the district court’s handling of the suit, and in our own precedents.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of federal jurisdiction. A suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction cannot also be dismissed “with prejudice”; that’s a disposition on the merits, which only a court with jurisdiction may render. See Johnson v. Wattenbarger, 361 F.3d 991, 993 (7th Cir. 2004). “No jurisdiction” and “with prejudice” are mutually exclusive. * * *

Russell, William v. Richards, J.D. (SD Ind., Judge Tinder)
Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs William Alan Russell and Mark E. Garriott were incarcerated in the Johnson County, Indiana, jail in 2001. They filed this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against then-Sheriff J.D. Richards, contending that the jail’s policy of directing incoming inmates to use a delousing shampoo violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process right to be free from unwanted medical treatment. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Richards. We affirm.
USA v. Morgan, Frederick J. (ND Ind., Judge Lee)
Before DIANE P. WOOD, EVANS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge. After police in Fort Wayne, Indiana, arrested George Perrin for selling cocaine, Perrin agreed to help mount a sting operation against Frederick Morgan. * * * Although Morgan was represented by counsel in the district court, he has since fired both of his attorneys and now appeals pro se, arguing that a host of errors led to his convictions. * * * Affirmed.
City of Chicago v. US TREASURY ATF (ND Ill.)
Before BAUER, ROVNER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
BAUER, Circuit Judge. The City of Chicago (“the City”) seeks information from a federal database regarding the sale of firearms and the tracing of firearms that have been recovered by law enforcement. Two and a half years ago we first heard this case and considered whether the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) could refuse to release the information to the City based on certain exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Following our decision that ATF must release the information, ATF appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. While that appeal was pending, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003 which ordered that “no funds . . . shall be available” to release the records in question. This case now comes to us on remand from the Supreme Court in order to determine what effect, if any, § 644 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003 has on this case. We find that the statutes in question preclude the use of federal funds for the retrieval of the information but do not substantively change the FOIA; accordingly, ATF must provide the City access to the databases.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 16, 2004 12:39 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions