## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3678 R OBERT G ILBERT, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. I LLINO IS S TATE B OARD O F E DU CA T I ON, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 05 C4699

—Rob ert M. Dow, Jr. , Judg e.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 11, 2009

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 11, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, an d P OSNERan d W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu i t J u dge. From 1978 u nt ilJ uly 1995 , Rob ert Gi lbe r t wor k ed as a s o ci als tu d i es t ea ch era t Pa l at i ne H i gh S chool, wh i ch w as run by the Board of Ed ucati on o f T ow n sh ip H igh Sc h oo l D ist ric t 211 (th e “ D ist ric t” ). W h ile Gi lbe r t was wi del y r eg ar ded f o r hi s skil ls i n the cl as sr o o m , he c o nt i nual l y s par r ed wi thc o l l ea g ue s an d schoo l offici al s. Ti re d ofthe confl i cts, the Dist ri ct di sch ar g ed Gi lbe r t o n J ul y 12 , 19 95 , ci ting hi s i ns ubo r di na ti o n,2 N o. 08

- 3678 h is a c rim on iou s re lat ion sh ip w ith h is c olle a gu es , an d h is f ai l ur e to c o m pl et e a r emedi at i o n pl an . Gilber t was co nvi nced that the Di str i ct l acke d adequate c au se to en d h is e m p loy m en t, a n d h e fo u gh t t o s av e h is te nur ed po si ti o n a t a st at e admi ni st r ati ve he ar i ng . I n the end, h o we v e r, h e wa s u ns uc c e s s ful, fi r s tb e f o r e the s tat e ad m in ist ra tiv e a ge n c y, th en i n st at e c ou rt, an d fina lly i n th e d i s t r i c t co u r t
. I n d i s mi s s i n go r r ej e c t i n ge a c h c o mpla i nt, the dist ri ct c ourt(a c ting fi rs t thro ugh J ud ge Guzmán an d l at erthr ou gh Judge Do w) r el i ed o n the R o o k er - Fe l dm an do c tr ine, abs ol ute i m m unity, and a l ack ofst anding. S ee Rooke rv. Fi de l i ty Tr us tCo. , 263 U .S. 41 3, 41 5-1 6 (1 92 3); D istrict of Col um b i a Ct
. of

App. v. Fe l dm an , 46 0 U. S
. 4 62 , 4 86 ( 19 83 )
. Gilbert appe al s to thi s co ur t an d conte sts the iss ue o fst anding and the appl i cabi l i ty of R o o k er - Fe l dm an . We a ffi r m.

I A fterthe Dist ri ct di schar ged G ilber t o n J uly12 , 19 95, Gi lbe r t i nv o k ed hi s r i g hta s a t en ur ed t ea ch ert o a n a dm i ni str ati ve hear i ng co nvened by the I l l in oi s S tat e Boar d of Ed ucati on ( “I SBE”). Pursuant to the I l l i noi s S choolC ode, Gilber t w as enti tl ed to prese nt w i tness es and a ny oth er r e l e v a n te v i d e n c e o n hi s b e h a l f

. 1 0 5 I L C S 5 /2 4

- 1 2 ( 2 0 0 6 )
. At the he ar i ng, the schoo l di str i ct pr oce ede d fir st and prese nt ed i t s e v i d e n c e o v e r th e c o u r s e o f4 0 d a y s . Aft e r the Di st r i ctr es te d i ts cas e, Gilbe r t fi l ed a m o ti o n f o r “ j udg m en t i n hi s f avo r. ” He und er sto od thi s t o be a nal ogo us to a mo t i o n i n f e d e r a l c o u r t f o r j u d g me n t a s a ma t t er o fl a w. Se e F ED . R. C IV . P RO . 50 ( a)
. On Apri l 2 , 2 00 1, the he ar i ngN o. 08

- 3678 3

o ffi c e rg r a n t e d G i lb e r t ’ s mo t i o n o n t wo a l t e r na t i v e g r o un ds and or dered hi s r ei nstat em ent. The Dist ri ct fi l ed a c om pla i nt se eking adm i ni str ati ve re vi ew o fthe hear i ng offi cer ’ s orderi n the Cir cui t Cour t o f Cook County. On A pri l 17, 20 02, the ci rcuitco urt rej ecte d o ne o fthe b ases f o r r eins ta te m en t, b uti t affi r m ed th e dec i si o n o n the a l te r na te g roun d off er ed bythe he ar i ng offi cer . Pro ceedi ng up the c hai n ofr ev iew , the Dist ri ct ap p ealed to th e Il li nois A p p ell ate C ou rt. Th at cou rt r ev er se d a nd r emande d “ wi thdi recti o ns t o r eins ta te the D ist ric t’s te rm in at ion of G ilbe rtfrom h is e m p loy m en t.” Concerned that these re m and i nstr ucti ons l eft no roo m f or re conve ni ng hi s adm i ni str ati ve hear i ng, Gilber t pet i ti oned th e appe l l at e co ur t f o r r eh ea r i nga nd c la r i fi ca ti o n o fthe ord er. H e argu ed that furt he r proce ed ings w ere nec essary b efo re a fin al j u d gm en t w as p os sib le, an d th at an im m ed iat e o r d e r c on firm in g t h e e n d of h is e m p loy m en t w ou ld viol ate hi s due pro cess r i ghts und erthe U ni ted S tat es Con st i tu ti o n. The appe l l at e co ur t den i ed Gi lbe r t’ s pet i ti o n. Gilber t then fi l ed a pet i ti on f orl eave to appealwith t he I l l i n o i s S u p r e me C o u r t, i n v o k i n gI l l i n o i s S u p r e me Court Rule 315, wh i ch spel l s o u t the way to r equest disc re ti onar y r evi ew fro m thatco urt. Thi s peti ti on was d en ied on M arch 24, 20 04. Cu riously, Gilbert d id n ot try to use I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t Rul e 3 17, wh i ch perm i ts a p p ea ls a s a m at te r of rig h t w h en a c on st itu tio n al c laim arises forthe fir st tim e as a result o f a n a p p ell ate cou rt de c isio n . N ordi d G i lber t e verfi l e a peti ti on f ora w ri t o f ce rt iorar i w i th the U ni ted S tat es Suprem e Cour t. I ns t e a d, th e c a s e r e t ur ne d t o the c i r c ui tc o ur t
. OnS e pt e mb e r 7, 2 0 0 4 , th a tc o u r ti s s u e d a n o r d e r r e i n s t a ti ng4 N o. 08

- 3678 th e D ist ric t’s d isc h ar ge of G ilbe rt . B elie vin g t h at th e Illino is A pp el l ate C ourt ’ s orderfor ecl ose d any furtheradm i ni str ati ve proce ed in gs , the j ud ge denie d G i lber t’ s r equest to r e ma n d t o th e h e a r i n go ffi c e r . The c o u r ts u g g e s t e d , h o wev er , th a t t h e ISB E m igh t re c on ve n e t h e h ea rin g if it con clud ed that i t p ossess ed the au th ority to d o so. Gilbert f o l l o we d u p o n t h e s u g g e s t i o n, b u tt h e I S B E r e b u ff e d h i m, st at i ngtha t i t no l o ng err et aine d j ur i sdi cti o n o ve r the case . G ilbert did not fi le an ap p eal from the circu it court’s ord er on rem an d , and so the Il li nois A p p e lla te C ou rt w as n ev er as ke d w h e t h e r t h e c irc u it c ou rth ad p ro p er ly c o ns t r ue d the s c o pe o fthe r e man d. Gilber t turned i nstea d to the federa l co urts and i ni ti ate d the pr ese nt cas e. A ftervo l untari l y di sm issing hi s i ni ti al com pla i nt, he fi l ed a t w o- count a m ended com pla i nt o n M ay2 3, 2 00 5. The c o m p lai nt na m ed as de f en dan ts the I S BE, the i nd i v i du a l me mbe r s o fthe I S BE, the l ega l adv i so r t o the I S BE, the Di st r i ct, the S ta te o fI l l i no i s, the Illino is C irc u it C ou rtju d ge , a n d t h e tw o s u rv ivin g Illino is A pp el l ate Courtj ud ges . Count Ias ser ted a d u e proces s cl ai m and sought a n i nj uncti on t o re conve ne the adm i ni str ati ve hear i ng. Count I I re quested si m i l ari nj uncti ve re l i ef pl us a d e c l a r a t i o n th a tth e I l l i n o i s S c h o o l C o d e a nd the I l l i noi s a dm i ni str ati ve re vi ew l aw s in G i lber t’ s ca se vi o l at ed hi s due pr o ce ss r i g ht s. On M ar ch 3 0, 2 00 7, the di s t r i c tc o ur tg r a nt e d d e f e nd a nt s ’ mo t i o n t o di s mi s s e xc e pt w i th r ega rd to Gilber t’ s cl ai m f ord eclar ato ryr el i ef aga i nst the Di str i ct. I n additi on t o re sol vi ng som e i ssues re lating to the am enabi l i ty ofvar i ous defendants to sui t, the c ourthel d that the R o o k er - Fe l dm an doctr i ne bar re d i t fro m exer ci si ng j uri sdic ti on o verG ilbe rt ’ s cl ai m f or inj un ctive reli ef.N o. 08

- 3678 5 A m o nth l at er, Gi lbe r t so ug htl ea ve to fi l e a f o ur - co unt se co nd amende d co m pl aint
. Thi s ti m e Gi lbe r t add ed the ind ivid u al d efe n d an ts in t h eir offic ial c ap ac ity and inser ted a cl ai m f ordam age s. Concl ud i ng that the R o o k er - Fe l dm an doct r i ne b a r r e d Gi lb e r t ’ s c l a i ms no mat t e r wha t f o r m o f re l i efhe s ought, the cour t deni ed Gilber t’ s m oti on o n October30 , 20 07. N onethel ess , i t gav e G i lber t o ne l ast ch an ce by gr a n t in g him l eave to fil e a one-cou nt third am ended com pla i nt to se ek a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent. G ilbert took an oth er b ite at th e ap p le and fil ed his third am en d ed co m p lain t r equesting decl ar ato ryr el i ef, dam age s, at to r ne y s’ fee s, a nd a ny o th erf o r m ofre l i efthe co ur t f o und approp ria te. ( This w as the point atwh i ch the case was m ov ed fro m J ud ge Gu zm án to J ud ge Dow
. ) Def endants fi led a su p p lem en t a l m otion to d ism iss, w hich the cou rt gran te d o n Sep tem ber 24, 2008. I t con clud ed that Gilbert di d no t h ave s ta ndi ngt o s ee kde cl ar at o r y r el i efa nd rej ecte d G i lber t’ s a rgum ent that the “l aw o fthe case ” doctr i ne pre vente d i t fro m deci ding th i s j uri sdic ti onal que st i o n.

II O n ap p ea l, G ilbe rtc h alle n ge s t h e d ism iss al of h is com pla i nts. Gilber t a l so att acks J ud ge Gu zm án’ s deni al ofhi s m oti on f orlea ve to fi l e a se cond am ended com pla i nt. W e revie w t h e form er deno vo , and the l att ero nl y f or an a b u se o f d isc re tio n . Tam ayo v. Blagoj e vi ch, 526 F. 3d 1074, 10 81 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); St
. John’s U ni t e d C hurc h of Chr i s tv. City of Chi cago , 502 F.3d 616 , 625 (7th C ir. 2007).6 N o. 08

- 3678 A Fo r the m ostpart, thi s ca se turns on the R o o k er - Fe l dm an doctr i ne. S ee R o o k er, 2 6 3 U .S. at 4 15 -16 ; Fe l dm an , 460 U
. S. at 48 6. T h es e t w o d e c isio n s e st ab lish th e p ro p os iti on that the l ower federa l co urts l ack j uri sdic tio n to re vi ew the deci si ons ofst ate co urts i n ci vi l cas es. S ee Exxon M ob i l Corp
. v. Sa udiIndu s . Corp. , 544 U
. S. 28 0, 28 3- 84 (20 05 ); Jo hn son v. O rr, 551 F.3d 564 , 568 (7th C ir. 2008). C on gress has gr anted the pow erto enga ge i n appell ate re vi ew o f sta te cour t j ud gm ents onl y to the Suprem e Cour t. Se e 2 8 U.S
. C. § 1 257; H e m m e rv. Indi ana St at eBd. of A nim al Health , 532 F. 3d 610, 613 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 )
. The R o o k er Fe l dm an pri nci ple pre vents a sta te- cour t los er fro m br i ngi ngs ui ti n f e de r a l c o ur ti n o r de r ef f ect i v e l y t o s e ta s i de the s tat e- cour t j ud gm ent. S ee E xxo n M obil, 544 U.S
. at28 4. This j uri sdic ti onalbarapplies ev en tho ugh “the st ate co ur t j udg m en t m i g htb e er r o ne o us or ev enunc o ns ti tu
ti onal

. ” Kam i l e wicz v. Bank o f Bos t on Corp
. , 92 F. 3d 506, 51 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96)
. There ar e l i m i ts, h owever, to the re ach o f th e d o c t r i n e. T h ou gh a low er fed er al c ou rtm ay n ot sit in rev iew ov er a st at e c ou rtj u d gm en t, a fe d er al c ou rtis f r ee t o e nt er ta i n c l ai m s th ata r e i nde pen dent o fa ny state court proce edi ngs. S ee Lon g v . Sh or e b ank D e v. Corp. , 182 F. 3d 548, 55 5 ( 7th Cir
. 19 99) ( noti ng tha t R o o k er - Fe l dm an does not bar“a federa l cl ai m all eging a pri ori nj ury that a s tat e cour t f ai l ed to r em edy”)

. M or eov er, bec ause the R o o k er - Fe l dm an doctr i ne i s co ncer ned onl y w i th st ate c ou rtd et er m in at ion s, it p re se n ts n o j u ris d ict ion al ob st ac le to j udi ci alr ev i ew o fe xe cut i ve a ction, i nc l udi ngde ci si o ns m ade by st ate adm i ni str ati ve age nci es. S ee V erizon M ary-N o. 08

- 3678 7 l and, Inc . v. Pub l i c Se r vi ceCom ’ n of M aryl and, 53 5 U.S
. 63 5, 644 n
. 3 (2002). Re l y i ngo n R o o k er - Fe l dm an , the dist ri ct c ourtdi sm i sse d th e due pr o ce ss c l ai m i n Gi lbe r t’ s amende d c o m plai nt for lack of su bj ect-m atter j urisd iction. R ecall th at G ilbert had al l ege d that thi s wide g ro up o fdefendants had depr i ve d hi m o fhi s due pr o ce ss ri g ht s byf ai l i ngt o r ec o nvene hi s hea ri ng so thath e c ou ld pre sent hi s s i de of the c a s e . T he i nj ur y Gi lb e r tc l ai m ed t o h a v e s uff e r e d, th e cour t e xplai ned, fl owed di re ctl y fro m the I l l i nois Appel l at e Cou r t’ s d ecision. Tha t co ur t ha d r ul ed th atthe or der e nd i ng Gi lber t’ s e m plo ym ent was t o be r ei nstat ed w i thout any further adm i ni str ati ve proce edi ngs. W i th that in m ind , the d istri ct cou rt reason ed that gra n t ing G ilbert r el i efo n h i s due pr o ce ss c l ai m w ou l d r equi r e th e fed er al cou rt as a p ra c tic al m at te r to re ve rs e t h e Il l in ois A p p ella te C ou rt ’s jud gm en t. T h at is p re c ise ly w h at is f orbi dd en by R o o k er - Fe l dm an . Thi s r at i onal e a l so l ay b eh in d th e c ou rt ’s d ec isio n t o d en y G ilbe rtlea ve to file a se co nd a m en ded co m pl aintr ai singessen ti al l y the sam e cl ai m s. Bet r ay i nga funda m en ta l mis unde r st an di ngabout th e str ucture of the par al l elj ud i ci alsy ste m s i n the U ni ted S ta te s, Gi lbe r t ar g ue s th at hi s ca se i s i nde pen den t of the sta te cour t a cti ons and thus not barr ed by R o o k er - Fe l dm an , bec au se th e d ue p r o c e s s ri gh ts on w hich he reli es are a c re at u re of fed er al la w an d ( h e t h in ks ) m u st be ad j u d icate d i n federa l co urt. But that i s no t ho w the sys tem w or ks. U nl ess Congr ess has chose n to co nfe r excl usi ve j uri sdic ti on o n th e fed er alco urts f ora parti cul arse t o f8 N o. 08

- 3678

case s

— an d i t has not d one that here

— ei therthe f edera l o r th e st at e co ur ts a r e co m pet en t to a dj udi ca te qu estio ns o ffe d e r a l l a w, i n c l u d i n gqu e s t i o n s o fc o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w. S ta te c o ur ts po ss es s no t o nl y the a utho r i tyb uta l so the dut y t o e nf o r ce fede r all aw. U. S
. Co ns t. a r t. VI, c l

. 2
. The Su p re m e C ou rth as h eld th at st at e-c ou rtj u d g m en ts in § 19 83 c as es a r e subj ect, b y v i r tu e o fthe ful l f ai tha nd cre ditst atute , 28 U
. S. C. § 1 73 8, to the or dinar y r ule s o f cl aim and i ssue precl usi on i n l ate r f edera l

- cour t ca ses . Se e All e n v . M cCur ry, 4 49 U. S
. 9 0 ( 19 80 )
. S ucha ho l di ng w oul d be i m possibl e i fGilber t’ s pos i ti on were cor re ct. The r emai nde r o fGi lbe r t’ s a rgum en ts tur n o n the p rop er i nt erp retation of the Il li n o is A p p ell ate C ou rt’s d ec isio n an d th e w ay th at t h e c irc u it c ou rtim p lem en te d it on r em and. A s Gi lber t r eads the appel l ate decis i on, that cour t di d no t mea n t o pr e c l ud e fur the r pr o c e e di ng s o n re m and, and both the st ate
- cour t j u d ge a nd the f edera l d i s t r i c t c ou rterr ed by as su m in g t h at it d id . Pr op er ly r e a d , Gi lb e r t a s s e r t s ( r e l y i n go n C o a lf ie ld Coa l Co. v. Peck, 10 5 I ll. 52 9 (18 83 )), it i s ap p ar en t th at th e Illino is Appel l ate C our t m ea nto nl y t o r etur n mat te r s to the st atus quo ante, b efo r e hi s he ar i nge ve r b eg an . T h e p ro b lem is th at n eit h er th e d ist ric t c ou rtn or th is c ourt i s the proper tr ibunal to enter tai n that ar gum en t. A state cou rt

— the Ci rcui t Cour t o fCookCounty

— has al r ea dy i nt er pre te d the a ppel l at e co ur t’ s r ul i ng, a nd that cour t co ncl ud ed that the ap pel l ate co urt m eant to rul e o n the m er i ts ofthe Dist ri ct’ s deci si on t o fi re Gilber t. The ci rc u i t co urt had bef or e i t Gi lber t’ s a rgum ent that th e p r o c e e di ng s s ho ul d b e r e o pe ne d, a nd i tr ej ecte dN o. 08

- 3678 9 th atpo si ti o n, fi ndi ngtha t i t woul d c o nfl i ctwi ththe m andate the co urt had been g i ven fro m the appell ate co urt. Though th e c irc uitco urt l eft o pen the pos sibi l i ty f or Gi lb e r tt o a ddr e s s h i s r e qu e s tt o th e I S BE, the j ud g e ma de i t cl earthatj ud i ci alr evi ew o fthe or i gi nal o rderwas at an end. Thi s m ay h ave been an er ro neous i nter preta ti on o fthe I l l i no i s Appel l at e Cou r t’ s r emand i ns tr uct i o ns . But Gi lbe r t’ s r emedy was t o s ee kfur th erc l ar i fi ca ti o n fr o m the appell ate co u rt i tse l f, notto go dow n the str eetto the federa l co urt. Court s r evi ew j ud gm ents, noto pini ons, an d the r e i s no way tha t a f ede r alc o ur t i n the pres en t case co uld a ccept Gi lber t’ s due pro cess cl ai m and i ssue an inj u n c tio n to rec on ve n e h is h ea r i n g w ith ou t e ffec tiv ely re versing the appel l ate co urt’ s deci si on that further proce edi ngs were not l ega l l y r equi re d. Se e O rr, 55 1 F
. 3d at 56 8. T h er efo re , eve n th ou gh G ilbe rt ’s inj u ry st em s u ltim ate l y fro m the Dist ri ct’ s deci si on, hi s i m m ed i ate pr o bl em i s th e ci r cui t co ur t’ s o r deri m pl em en tingthe appell ate co urt’ s m anda te that the I SBE w as “to r ei nstat e th e D ist ric t’s te rm in at ion of G ilbe rtfrom h is e m p loy m en t.” Gilber t fi nd s thi s res ulth ar sh, bec ause hi s e vi dence w as not prese nted at the age ncy hear i ng, and th e stat e co ur ts ( he a ss er ts ) d id no t squa r el y a ddr es s hi s ar g um en t th at th is a m ou n te d t o a d e n ial of d u e p ro c es s. T h er e is an exce pti on t o the R o o k er - Fe l dm an d o c tr i n e th a ta l l o ws p lai nt iffs to l iti gate in th e federa l syste m i f th ey w ere n ot affo rd ed a “r ea so n ab le o p p o rt u n ity ” t o ra ise th eir cl ai m s i n sta te cour t. S ee Kel l y v . M e d- 1 S ol ut i ons , 54 8 F
. 3d 60 0, 60 5-0 6 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Lyn kv. La Port eSu pe r i or C o urt N o . 2 , 789 F.2d 55 4, 56 4– 65 (7t h C ir .1 9 8 6 ) . Th is10 N o. 08

- 3678

ex ce pti o n, ho wev er, c an no t he l p hi m . He pr es en te d hi s due pr o c e s s c l a i m, a lb e i t un s uc c e s s ful l y, i n hi s pe t i t i on t o the I l l i noi s A pp el l ate C ourtforrehear i ng and cl ar i fi cati on ofi ts or der a nd i n hi s peti ti on f orl eave to appealwith th e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rt . A lth ou gh bo th of th es e p et iti o ns wer e cur so r i l y deni ed, Gilbe r t pa ss ed up hi s o ppo r tu
n i t y t o a p p e a l a s a ma t t e r o fr i gh tt o th e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Court. S ee I l l

. S up . Ct. R. 317 ( provi ding f orappeal s a s a m att ero fr i ght i fa const i tu tio n al cl ai m ar i ses f orthe fi rs t tim e a s a res u lt of a n ap p ella te co u rtd ec isio n ). Th is is enough t o dem onst rate thatGilber t di d have a “r ea so n ab le op p or tu n ity ” t o p u rs u e h is d u e p ro c es s c laim in Il lin ois st at e c ou rt
. Cf

. Kel ly, 548 F.3d at60 6-0 7; Be t h

- El Al l Na t i o n s C h u r c h v . C i tyo f C h i c ago , 4 86 F. 3d 286, 29 2- 94 (7th C ir. 2007).

B Al l tha t r emai ns i s f o r us to addr es s Gi lbe r t’ s ar g um en t th a t t h e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed w h en it d ism iss ed h is thi rd am en d ed com pla i nt f ordecl ar ato ryr el i ef

. I n or der to u n d erstan d this i ssu e, a li ttle backgrou nd i s in order. I n h is M arch 30, 2006 , order d ism issing m ost of Gilbert’s a men de d c o mpl a i nt, J ud g e Gu z mánc ho s e n o tt o di s mi ss Gilber t’ s cl ai m f ordecl ar ato ry re l i ef

. Later, o n Octobe r 20, 20 07, J udg e Guzmán den i ed Gi lbe r t l eave to f i l e a se co nd am ended com pla i nt but gr an ted hi m a chance t o fi l e a thi rd am ended com pla i nt l i m i ted sol el y t o a cl ai m f or a d ec lar at or y jud gm en t. G ilbe rtto ok ad va n ta ge of th is o p p or tu n ity an d filed a c om p lain t a lleg in g t h at ce rt ain p ro vis ion s o f th e I l lin ois Sc h oo l C od e a n d th e Illino is A d m inistrative Cod e are v oid for vagu en ess. A fter GilbertN o. 08

- 3678 11 fi l ed that i ter ati on o fthe com pla i nt, the case was tr ansf e r r e d t o J ud g e Do w. De f e nd a nt s s o o n the r e a ft e r fi l e d a m otion to d ism iss i n w hich th e y a r gu ed that Gilbert l acke d standi ng to se ek decl ar ato ryr elief. Judge Dow gr anted thatm oti on a nd di sm i sse d the ca se. Gi lbe r t co nt en ds th atJ udg e D ow ’s ru l i ngv i o l at ed th e l aw - o f

- th e - c a s e d o c t r i n e . L o o k i n ga tma t t e r s fr o m the perspect i ve ofthe dist ri ct court, law-o f

- the- case pri nci ple s ar e a pp l i cabl e when a cas e i s t ra nsfer re d to a new j u dge m i dw ay thro ugh l i ti gat i on; i n gene ra l, the succes sorj ud ge i s di sc o ur ag ed fro m r ec o ns i der i ngthe de ci si o ns o fthe tr ansfer orj ud ge. S ee Bre nge t t cyv. Hor t on , 42 3 F
. 3d 674, 68 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. The suc ce ss o r j udg e sh o ul d de par t f r o m the tr ansfer orj ud ge’ s deci sio n o n l y “ i fhe ha s a co nvi cti on a t once str ong and r eas onabl e that the ear l i er ruling w as w rong, and i f r e s c in d ing it w ou ld n ot cau se un d ue harm to the par ty that had benefi tte d fr om i t. ” H KSyst em s, Inc. v. Eat on Corp
. , 55 3 F
. 3d 1086 , 1 08 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( quoti ng A viti a v. M et ropolita n C lub of Chicago , Inc. , 49 F. 3d 1219 , 12 27 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) )
. S in c e Ju dge Guzm án spe ci fi ca l l y pe r m i tt ed G ilbe r t to fi l e a co m pl aints ee k i ng decl ar ato ryr el i ef, Gilber t co ntends th at J ud ge Gu zm án m us t ha ve c o nc l ude d tha t what ev erGi lbe rtc ame u p w i th i n the new co m pla i nt w as n eces sar i l y j usti ci abl e. T h u s, G ilbe rtco n c lu d es , Jud ge D ow err ed w h en h e d id no t defert o J udg e Guzmán’ s appa r en t dec i si o n. B ut Gilbert’s argum en t loses si gh t of th e criti cal shift in pe rsp ective th at occ urs w he n it i s the ap p ell ate cou rt r e v i e wi n gwh a th a p p e n e d b e f o r e the di s t r i c tc o u r t
. As we no te d i n Wi l l i am s v. C .I.R., 1 F. 3d 502 (7th C ir. 1993),12 N o. 08

- 3678 “[ a] t that poi nt, i fr ulings b y the dist ri ct cour t on i ssues o f l aw ar e ch al l en g ed th e que st i o n i s no t whethe r the s ec o nd j ud ge shoul d have defe rr ed to the rul i ng o fthe fi rs t j ud ge, but wh etherthatr uling was cor re ct. ” Id. at 503. The i ssues bef or e us ar e e xcl usi vel y quest i ons ofl aw , and thus, exer ci si ng deno vo re vi ew , w e m ust deci de onl y whether th e ul ti m at e r es ul t r ea ch ed i n the di st r i ctc o ur t was the ri ght one. Si nce G i lber t has n ot chal l enged the co rr ectne ss ofJ ud ge Dow ’ s r uling, ther e is n othi ng m or e we need sa y on th e m at te r. Forthe sak e o fco m ple tenes s, however, we n ote that ther e i s a se cond re aso n w hy Gi lber t’ s law -of

- the- case ar gum ent i s doo m ed. J ud ge Dow cor re ctl y poi nted out that su cc es so r [ di st r i ct ] j udg es a r e “s i g ni fi ca nt l y l es s co nstr ai ned by the l aw o fthe case doctr i ne with re spect to j uri sdic ti onalquesti ons. ” O ’ Sul l i van v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 39 6 F. 3d 843, 84 9-5 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( quoti ng Shak m an v. D unn e, 82 9 F
. 2d 13 87 , 1399 ( 7th Ci r. 19 87) )
. I n additi on t o that poi nt ( w hi ch f l ows f ro m the f a c t t hat j u ris d ict ion al q u es tio n s m u st alw ay s b e a d d re s s e d ), i t is a l s o tr u e th a tth e l a w- o f

- th e - c a s e d o c t r i n e d o e s n o tc o me i nto pla y w h en the tr ansfer orj ud ge neverdeci ded the pr eci se i ssue that i s be f or e th e succes sorj ud ge. S ee FM S, Inc. v. Vo lvo Co nst
. Equipm entNorth Am er ica, Inc. , 55 7 F. 3d 758, 7 62-63 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. H er e, J ud ge Gu zm án nei therapprov ed Gilber t’ s new com pla i nt i n advan ce norf ocuse d on j usti ci abi l i ty. N othingin the l aw - of

- the- case d octri ne the r efo r e ba r r ed J udg e Dow fr o m a ddr es sing th is fu n d am en ta l ob j ec tio n to G i lbe rt ’s c om p lain t. Cf

. Jezi erski v . M uk a sey, 54 3 F
. 3d 886, 88 8 (7th C i r. 20 08) ( noti ng that a cour t’ s deci si on that add re sse s t h e m er i tsN o. 08

- 3678 13

o fa c as e wi th o utdi sc us singjurisdi ct i o n do es no t bi nd fut ur e co ur ts ’ j ur i sdi ct i o na l a na l y si s)
. J udg e D o w co nclud ed that Gilb e r t’s com p lai nt f ail ed to state an i njury that w as re dress abl e, si nce s ub se q u ent e vents had cure d w ha tever a m b ig u ity there m ay ha ve bee n in th e state’s proce du re s. H e no ted as wellthata f edera l co urt cannot i ssue a decl ar ato ry ju d gm ent “ because s om e onem ay be aff ec te d b y the pr o vi si o ns , i ftha t so m eo ne i s no t th e curr ent Pl ai nti ff

. ” * * * W e A F F I R M the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

1- 11- 10