a civil rights action. See Ritter v. Ross, 992 F.2d 750, 754
{7th Cir. 1996). If the remedy sought would require a District
Court to review a state court decision, the District Court lacks
proper jurisdiction. Id.

In the case at bar, there can be little doubt that the
Plaintiff’s alleged injuries all stem from the child support
order entered by the Circuit Court of Cook County on June 9,
1992. Hence, this cause of action is barred in federal court by
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The proper forum to address these
alleged injuries is in the state court, which entered the child
support order. Therefore, this Court grants defendants’ motion
to dismiss.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to

dismiss is granted.

ENTER:

WM Lhe
Gedrge-Wi. Marovich
Un, tates District Judge

paren: = (2 /s fs


plaintiff, and all well~pleaded facts in the complaint must be
accepted as true. Wilson v. Formigoni, 42 F.3d 1060, 1062 (7th
Cir. 1994). To withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
allege facts which sufficiently set forth the essential elements
of the cause of action. Gray v. County of Dane, 854 F.2d 179,
182 (7th Cir. 1988). Dismissal is proper only if it appears
beyond a doubt that a plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of a claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
TI. Section 1983 Claims

Defendants contend that Thomas should have sought review of
his state child support order claim in state court. Moreover,
the Defendants assert that this Court does not have proper
jurisdiction over the claim because it is barred by the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine. This doctrine provides that a United States
District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a
state court. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416-17
(1923); Dist. of Columbi urt of Ay , 460 U.S,
462, 482 (1983). Specifically, “the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars
not only attacks on issues actually decided in state court, but
also extends to claims that are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with
the state court judgment.” Long v. Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182
F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1999). To determine if a claim is
“inextricably intertwined” with a state court decision, a
district court must determine if the plaintiff is asking the
court to “review the state court decision”. Id. It is not

enough that a Plaintiff merely masks his intention in the form of

3



Minute Order Form (06/97)

Ve United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

N of Assigned Jud; i Slitting Judge if Other
enor Magistrate Judge George M. Marovich than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 5722 DATE 12/9/2003
CASE Thomas vs. Illinois Department of Public Aid, et al.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) ia) Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Q Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for} on set for at
(7) a Trial{set for/re-set for] on at
(8) a (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Q This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
OOFRCP4(m) CO) Local Rule 41.1. OO FRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).
qo) =f [Other docket entry] ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court grants
defendants’ motion to dismiss. All pending motions are denied as moot.
al) (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

oS | Docketing to mail notices.

oY | Mail A0 450 form.

|} Document) ||
a]

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. Lynd som sid 5
yd
rs een LisG Wa 6- 320
initials Date/time reggived fo} ("V1 I
cou ead 2



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CHARLES THOMAS,
Plaintiff,

v.
02 C 5722
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC, Judge George M. Marovich
AID, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC REVENUE, and DOROTHY
BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT

COURT

)

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Charles Thomas(“Thomas”) filed a Complaint against
the Illinois Department of Public Aid, Illinois Department of
Public Revenue, and Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court
(collectively “Defendants”), alleging that he has been subjected
to illegal child support demands by each Defendant and as such,
his civil right have been violated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§
1983"). Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6). For the
reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss.

BACKGROUND

The Complaint alleges the following relevant facts, which

for the purposes of deciding this motion, are taken as true.

Hishon v. Kemp & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). On June 9,
1992, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered in Order of



Support and Order for Withholding against Thomas for the support
of his child. In 1996, Thomas filed a lawsuit against the
Department of Public Aid apparently disputing the legitimacy of
the child support order. That suit was dismissed by this Court
on the grounds that Thomas had not exhausted his state remedies.

Subsequently, Thomas declared that during the years 1995 and
1996, he allegedly moved back in with his wife and children but
the child support was still being withheld from his income.
Additionally, Thomas claims that there was a five year gap in
receiving requests for child support payments, at which time, the
requests resumed. He asserts that this is a constitutional
violation.

According to the record, in 1997, Thomas was seen by the
Division of Child Support Enforcement at the Illinois Department
of Public Aid (“IDPA”). The IDPA sent him a letter explaining
that properly contesting his child support order, would require
him to petition the Cook County Domestic Relations Court that
originally entered the order and maintains jurisdiction to modify
or vacate the order. Thomas also appears to have contacted other
unnamed state agencies without avail. Thomas refused to follow
the advice afforded to him by IDPA, namely to contest the Order
in state court, but instead, Thomas filed this Complaint on
August 13, 2002.

DISCUSSTON
I. Standard for a Motion to Dismiss

When considering a motion to dismiss, a court must view the

complaint’s allegations in the light most favorable to the

2