Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan H. Lefkow Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 446 DATE 1/30/2012

CASE

TITLE

Amin, et al. vs. 5757 North Sheridan Rd Condo Assn., et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

This case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is

denied. The application for appointment of counsel [7] is denied.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Andira Amin and Maged Soliman, and their son Mark Bochra (“plaintiffs”), have presented for filing

a complaint along with an in forma pauperis application under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1) for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees and an ex parte motion for appointment of

counsel under this court’s Local Rule 83.36. Plaintiff names as defendants the 5757 North Sheridan Road

Condo Association (“the Association”) and Ronald Mendelblat, its president. Covering 20 pages of factual

allegations in addition to numerous federal and state claims, plus approximately 70 pages of exhibits,

plaintiffs chronicle a history of conflict with the Association and its management agent dating from January

2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim violation of their civil rights arising from discrimination based on their

Coptic religious beliefs, their Egyptian national ancestry and race; retaliation for having filed charges with

the Illinois Department of Human Rights; and violations of the Illinois Condominium Property Act. They

seek an injunction against the involuntary sale.

“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (internal citation and quotation marks

omitted). However, “a district court judge should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if an action is

frivolous . . . .” Wartman v. Branch 7, Civil Div., Cnty. Ct., Milwaukee Cnty., State of Wis., 510 F.2d 130,

134 (7th Cir. 1975); accord Bryan v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 455, 458 (7th Cir. 1987). A frivolous complaint is

one in which “the petitioner can make no rational argument in law or facts to support his or her claim for

relief.” Williams v. Faulkner, 837 F.2d 304, 306 (7th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff’d sub

nom. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). 

In assessing any complaint, the court must first decide whether it has jurisdiction over the subject

matter of the law suit. See Cook v. Winfrey, 141 F.3d 322, 325 (7th Cir. 1998) (“The requirement that

jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the

United States and is inflexible and without exception.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

12C446 Amin, et al. vs. 5757 North Sheridan Rd Condo Assn., et al. Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

Federal courts do have jurisdiction over a variety of civil rights claims. E.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (“All citizens

of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens

thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”); The Fair Housing Act,

42 U.S.C. §§ 3604, 3617 (making it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial

status, or national origin in connection with the sale or rental of property; prohibiting retaliation). Federal

courts’ jurisdiction over such claims is not exclusive, however. A state court has concurrent jurisdiction. See

28 U.S.C. § 1343 (district courts have original jurisdiction of civil rights claims); Blount v. Stroud, 915

N.E.2d 925, 395 Ill. App. 3d 8, 333 Ill. Dec. 854 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (addressing § 1981 claim); 42 U.S.C. §

3613 (granting right to sue in state or federal court). 

The complaint and attached documents reveal that at some time before January 2008 Maged Soliman

and Andira Amin purchased a condominium unit at 5757 North Sheridan Road in Chicago. After a period of

unresolved conflicts between plaintiffs and the Association, the Association sued Amin and Soliman in the

Circuit Court of Cook County (Case No. 2010 CH 15025) seeking an involuntary sale of the unit under the

Illinois Condominium Property Act for violation of the Declaration and Bylaws of the Association. The

court infers (based on a September 2010 motion for a trial date) that litigation may be currently pending in an

Illinois court over the issues now raised in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims as well as their state law

claims are germane to the Association’s claim against the plaintiffs in Case No. 2010 CH 15025 and could

be asserted as defenses or counterclaims in the state court suit. See Kirkham v. Harris, 2 N.E.2d 119,

120–21, 285 Ill. App. 385 (Ill. App. Ct. 1936) (“The fact that [mortgagor] failed to interpose a defense

thereto, when she was a party to the [foreclosure] suit and with full knowledge of the facts, bars her from

now attempting to litigate the questions which were germane to and could have been tried and determined in

the former suit.”); Provident Bank v. Wright, No. 00 CV 6027, 2001 WL 777054, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 11,

2001) (claim of violation of Equal Credit Opportunity Act could be asserted as counterclaim in mortgage

foreclosure action). 

If the state court case is no longer pending because it has proceeded to judgment, plaintiffs may not

avoid the effect of the judgment by filing in federal court. Rather, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,

“United States District Courts . . . do not have jurisdiction . . . over challenges to state court decisions in

particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action

was unconstitutional.” Ritter v. Ross, 992 F.2d 750, 753 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting District of Columbia Ct. of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983)). Moreover, “[i]t is settled

that ‘a plaintiff may not seek a reversal of a state court judgment simply by casting his complaint in the form

of a civil rights action.’” Ritter, 992 F.2d at 754 (citations omitted).

For these reasons, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

12C446 Amin, et al. vs. 5757 North Sheridan Rd Condo Assn., et al. Page 2 of 2