@D

ited States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name schon
ate

se
se

Sitting Judge if Other

James B. Moran thant Assitned Judge

CASE NUMBER

02 C 7193 DATE 6/27/2003

CASE
TITLE

Sophie Quinn vs. Ilinois Department of Children etc

MOTION:

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.)

Memorandum Opinion and Order

DOCKET ENTRY:

Oo

qa)
Q)
@)
(4)
©)
(6)
mM
@)
@)

gooagoono0ogono oo

(0) =x

dl) @

Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]}
Brief in support of motiondue___.

Answer brief to motion due__.
Ruling/Hearing on
Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__
Pretrial conference(held/continued to] (set for/re-set for] on
Trial[set for/re-set for]on__—at
[Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___—_att

This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
O FRCP4(m)

[Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the above reasons, DCFS’ motion
to dismiss is granted and plaintiff's motion to strike is denied.

[For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

. Reply to answer brief due.

set for at

set for at

set for at

ClLocal Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a\(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).

No notices required.

a | Mail AO 450 form.

No notices required, advised in open court.
Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.

oY | Docketing to mail notices.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

WAH

umber of notices

JUN 30 2003

le docketad

L1YNOI LoLsia “sn
Vega

21:6 HY Le Nnr cu
pdinbldaddih 4

central Clerk's Office

courtroom
deputy's

initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
SOPHIE QUINN )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 02 C 7193 DOCKE TED
) YUN 3 0 2993
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN __)
AND FAMILY SERVICES, )
)
Defendant. )
MEM! UM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Sophie Quinn brought this action against the Illinois Department of Children
and Family Services (DCFS) seeking review of a final administrative decision. DCFS moves
to dismiss. For the following reasons, DCFS’ motion is granted.

On March 4, 2002, DCFS’ Administrative Hearing Unit (AHU) denied plaintiff's
request for expungement of a child abuse/neglect record (cpit, exh, A). On April 9, 2002,
plaintiff brought suit against DCFS in the Circuit Court of Cook County seeking review of the
expungement denial (cplt, exhs. Band B1). DCFS moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis
that it was untimely. On October 7, 2002, plaintiff filed a notice of removal in this court. On
October 8, 2002, the Circuit Court of Cook County issued an order granting defendant’s
motion to dismiss (mo. to distniss, exh. A).

We first note that it is not proper for plaintiff to seek removal to federal court since it
is plaintiff who initially chose to bring this action to state court. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp.

y. Sheets, 313 U.S.100 (1941). It also appears that while plaintiff was proceeding in this court

she simultaneously sought review of the circuit court’s dismissal within the state court system



—~— ~

No. 02 C 7193 Page2

(mot. to dismiss exh.B). Additionally, plaintiff's complaint, even viewed under the less
stringent standards for pro se pleadings, does not sufficiently provide a plain statement of the
claim as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).

While improper removal, our limited jurisdiction over matters before the state courts
and failure to comply with Rule 8(a), each provide independent grounds for dismissal, for the
sake of thoroughness we address the Eleventh Amendment issue. Plaintiff has brought this
suit against DCFS seeking monetary damages. As a statewide agency, DCFS is treated as the
State of Iinois for Eleventh Amendment purposes. Kroll v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of
Illinois, 934 F.2d 904, 907 (7% Cir. 1991). Under the Eleventh Amendment, a state cannot be
sued by a private citizen in federal court without its consent. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651,
663 (1974). Also, a state is immune from any liability that would require paying damages from
public funds. Id.

In her response to the motion to dismiss plaintiff focuses primarily on the identity of
defendant’s counsel, an issue that has already been addressed by this court (see Minute Order
of 5/13/03 granting DCFS’ motion to quash subpoenas). Defense counsel are properly licensed
to represent their client and plaintiff's motion to strike the appearances of attorneys
Greenspan and Steimel is denied.

For the above reasons, DCFS’ motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiff's motion to

strike is denied.

Nas 2, 2003.

JAMES B. MORAN
ior Judge, U, S. District Court