Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’ s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (and

mandatory injunctive relief) be denied.

DATED: October 2, 2002 ENTER:

Lon 4) Riven

IAN H. LEVIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within
ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72 (B);
28 U.S.C. §636(B)(1)(B); LORENTZEN V. ANDERSON PEST CONTROL, 64 F.3D 327, 329 (7TM
CIR. 1995); THE PROVIDENT BANK V. MANOR STEEL CORP., 882 F.2D 258 (7TM CIR. 1989).


8 Qruer Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

ig jus Sitti ge if O1 .
roe Magistrate Tudge Ronald A, Guzman than Assigned Judge Tan H. Levin
CASE NUMBER 02 C 5996 DATE 10/2/2002
CASE Petersen vs. United States of America
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
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:
DOCKET ENTRY:
qi) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due.
(3) Qo Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer briefdue__.
(4) im} Ruling/Hearingon__setfor__at
(5) Oo Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at.
(6) Oo Pretrial conference(held/continued to] {set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor_ at
(1) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to aat.
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) Cl Local Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a)(1) OC FRCP41(a)(2).
qo) =o (Other docket entry] Enter report and recommendation recommending that the motion by

plaintiff for preliminary injunction relief (and mandatory injunctive relief) against the Illinois
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the IIlinois Supreme Court {5-1] be denied,
for the reason stated in the recommended order attached. Motion to strike the ARDC defendant’s
objection to plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief is denied. The motion hearing date of 10/8/02,
noticed by the plaintiff is hereby vacated.

dl) gf {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. Document

Number

No notices required.
umber of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

av | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.

v | Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice

courtroom
SM deputy’s
initials

Datehime received in
central Clerk's Office ‘mailing deputy initials



DOCKETED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS OCT » 3 2092
EASTERN DIVISION
PAUL PETERSON )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 02 C 5996
v. )
) District Judge Ronald A. Guzman
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEPT. OF )
JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTI- ) Magistrate Judge Jan H. Levin
GATION, DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, _)
ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLI-_ )
NARY COMMISSION, ILLINOIS SUPREME __)
COURT, MARY ROBINSON, Administrator of )
the ARDC, TRACY KEPLER and ROSALYN )
KAPLAN, employees of the ARDC, )
)
Defendants. )

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The reasons for the recommended denial of the subject motion! are as follows:
1) For the bases set forth in the objections of Defendant Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission (“ARDC”)’, which, essentially, are that:
A) The federal courts should and must “Abstain” from requested actions in this
proceeding that would necessarily interfere with ongoing state disciplinary

proceedings. e.g., Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Association,

} The Court finds that no evidentiary hearing is necessary on the motion. See e.g., Ty,
Inc. v. The Jones Group, 98 F.Supp. 988, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2001); Promatek Industries, Ltd. v.
Equitrac Corp. 300 F.3d 808, 814 (7" Cir. 8/13/02).

2 It perhaps bears noting that the Defendant(s) has indicated that a motion(s)to dismiss
in the cause will be filed on or prior to October 21, 2002.

\


2)

3)

4)

457 US. 423 (1982);

B) The Rooker - Feldman applies to Plaintiff's collateral attacks herein on the
orders of the Illinois Supreme Court, see, e.g., Manley v. City of Chicago, 236
F.2d 392, 395-398 (7" Cir. 2001);

C) Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief to the extent he is seeking to obtain
employment with the ARDC, see, ¢.g., Long v. Chicago Transit Authority,
979 F. Supp. 1214, 1216 (N.D. Ill 1997), citing Tregenza v. Great Am.
Communications Co.,12 F.3d 717, 718 (7" Cir. 1993);

D) Plaintiffis not entitled to any order compelling investigations by the ARDC,
see, ¢.g. Doyle v, Oklahoma Bar Association, 998 F.2d 1559 (10" Cir. 1993);
Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d 1322 (11" Cir. 2001).

Upon review, the court perceives no real likelihood of success on the merits as to

Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction;

Plaintiff cannot establish irreparable harm as to certain of his preliminary injunction

issues. See, e.g., Shegog v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 194 F.3d 836, 839

(7" Cir. 1999), citing Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 51, 89-92 (1974); EEOC v.

Janesville, 630 F.2d 1254, 1259 (7" Cir. 1980); citing Sampson, 415 U.S. at 61.

Mandatory preliminary injunctive relief, as sought here, is rarely issued and is never

issued “except upon the clearest equitable grounds.” Graham v. Medical Mutual of

Ohio, 130 F.2d 293, 295 (7" Cir, 1995). The court determines, respectfully, that no

such clear showing for equitable relief has been made by the Plaintiff herein.