Tatro v. State of Illinois Criminal Court et al, No. 3:2011cv03384 - Document 3 (C.D. Ill. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION (See Written Opinion): Tatro's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (d/e 2) is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/13/2011. (VM, ilcd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
E-FILED Thursday, 13 October, 2011 11:43:32 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION RONALD TATRO, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS CRIMINAL COURT, and SANGAMON COUNTY JUVENILE DIVISION Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 11-3384 OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge: Ronald L. Tatro, proceeding pro se, seeks to file a document (petition) in which he asks this Court to intervene in a state court proceeding to permanently terminate his parental rights. Pending also is a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See d/e 2. For the reasons that follow, Defendant s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED. I. BACKGROUND The Court has reviewed Tatro s petition. As stated, his proposed petition concerns a proceeding to terminate parental rights in the Circuit Court for the Page 1 of 3 Seventh Judicial Circuit of Illinois, Sangamon County. Tatro claims that if the state court terminates his parental rights it would be a life sentence on [Tatro s] family. Tatro asks this Court to make a ruling the State of Illinois will have to respect. Accordingly, it appears Tatro is requesting that this Court halt the state court proceedings and assume jurisdiction over the matter. II. ANALYSIS This action will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court lacks the authority to grant Tatro s request. [V]isitation and the termination of parental rights are beyond the scope of a federal court. Lewis v. Family and Social Services Adminstration, 2005 WL 2562988, at * 1 (N.D. Ind. 2005) (citing Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979).) Moreover, to the extent Tatro is asking this Court to review any decision of the state court in the termination proceedings, federal district courts cannot review the merits of decisions made by state courts in civil litigation. See Mannix v. Machnik, 244 F. App x 37, 39 (7th Cir. 2007). Any relief from an adverse state court decision must be sought through the state appellate system. See id. Accordingly, this Court is unable to entertain Tatro s claim. III. CONCLUSION Page 2 of 3 THEREFORE, Tatro s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (d/e 2) is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTER: October 13, 2011. FOR THE COURT: s/ Sue E. Myerscough SUE E. MYERSCOUGH United States District Judge Page 3 of 3
]]>
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.
