John Justice v. Town of Cicero, No. 18-1850 (7th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted November 2, 2018* Decided November 5, 2018 Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge No. 18 1850 JOHN C. JUSTICE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. TOWN OF CICERO, et al., Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 17 C 7448 Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge. O R D E R John Justice operated a business that was shut down by the Town of Cicero, Illinois, for lack of a business license and nonpayment of related fines. A self described “sovereign citizen,” he never applied for a license to operate his business because, in his view, “a license is permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal” and “the law of the United States” does not forbid the operation of a business. After his business shut down, Justice, citing a range of sources (including Virginia law from 1785, * We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 18 1850 Page 2 the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the United States Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, and quotations attributed to Samuel Adams) petitioned in Illinois state court for a “writ of prohibition” to enjoin the Town and its employees from further trespassing against his property, stealing from him, and restraining his liberty. The judge concluded that Justice failed to plead sufficient facts to state a cause of action and dismissed the case with prejudice. Justice then turned to federal district court and brought this diversity action against the Town and two of its employees, Jerry Jarosz and Tony Bertuca,1 for acting beyond their legal authority by closing Justice’s business, thus violating his constitutional rights. The judge determined that Justice was reasserting essentially the same claim against essentially the same parties as in the state court action and dismissed his case as barred by claim preclusion. Justice’s briefs are terse and do little to engage the district court’s reasoning, see FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001), but we read them generally to challenge the district court’s application of claim preclusion. We agree, however, with the court’s ruling. The doctrine of claim preclusion bars a party from relitigating a claim that was decided or could have been decided in an earlier suit, regardless of whether that prior suit was in state or federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Chicago Title Land Tr. Co. v. Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Sales Ltd., 664 F.3d 1075, 1079 (7th Cir. 2011). The requirements of claim preclusion have all been met: the parties in this suit are the same or in privity with those in the prior case;2 the allegations arise out of the same operative facts; and there is a final judgment in the prior suit. See id.; Nowak v. St. Rita High Sch., 757 N.E.2d 471, 477 (Ill. 2001). Justice’s litigation history demonstrates that he is unwilling to accept adverse outcomes. He must understand that decisions are final whether he wins or loses. 1 Bertuca, an administrative hearing officer, is not actually a Town employee, but Justice identifies him as such in his complaint. 2 Justice does not argue that the inclusion here of Jarosz and Bertuca defeats claim preclusion. But we note that Jarosz and Bertuca, in their official capacities, are in privity with the Town, see Gray v. Lacke, 885 F.2d 399, 405 (7th Cir. 1989), and Justice, in his state complaint, sued the Town “[e]mployees in their personal capacities.” No. 18 1850 Page 3 Relitigation of the same point is unacceptable and will lead to penalties. See Homola v. McNamara, 59 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
