-JAG Kleiss v. John Doe, No. 1:2011cv01215 - Document 15 (C.D. Ill. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER and OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 6/22/2011. Plaintiff's 10 Motion to Stay of Proceedings pending Appeal is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. CASE TERMINATED. (cc: Plaintiff) (KB, ilcd)

Download PDF
-JAG Kleiss v. John Doe Doc. 15 E-FILED Thursday, 23 June, 2011 08:26:37 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION JERRY KLEISS, Plaintiff, v. JIM DROZDZ, Illinois State Prosecutor, Hancock, Illinois Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 11-1215 ORDER & OPINION On June 6, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint with this Court seeking an order staying the ongoing state court criminal proceedings against him. (Doc. 1).1 On June 8, 2011, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice because Plaintiff had failed to properly name a Defendant. (Doc. 4). On June 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in which he named Jim Drozdz, the Illinois State Prosecutor for Hancock County, Illinois, as Defendant. (Doc. 6). On June 16, 2011, this Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and therefore dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 7). On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 11). In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (Doc. 10). Plaintiff The state court proceedings are allegedly set to begin on again on June 23, 2011. (Doc. 9). 1 Dockets.Justia.com again asks the Court to stay his state court criminal proceedings, this time pending the appeal of this Court’s decision that it does not have jurisdiction over his Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10). However, as the Court found in its Order and Opinion of June 16, 2011, it does not have the jurisdiction to stay such proceedings. Accordingly, because the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction pursuant to the Younger doctrine, it again cannot properly reach out and stay Plaintiff’s state court proceedings. Moreover, Plaintiff has neither paid the applicable filing fee in this matter, nor been granted in forma pauperis status. Although Plaintiff initially filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), this motion was both incomplete on its face and inaccurate according to a subsequent Letter Plaintiff sent to the Court. (Doc. 5). Therefore, in addition to the Court lacking jurisdiction pursuant to Younger, it also lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiff is not properly before it. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. CASE TERMINATED. Entered this 22nd day of June, 2011. s/ Joe B. McDade JOE BILLY McDADE United States Senior District Judge 2

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.