Wayne Patterson v. John Jason Chambers

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 16, 2023 *
Decided October 20, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 22-3235
WAYNE PATTERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN JASON CHAMBERS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 22-CV-1293
Michael M. Mihm,
Judge.
O R D E R
Litigants who want a ruling on the motions they file in the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit Court of Illinois must request a hearing date. I LL . 11TH J UD. C IR . C T . R. 5(C). If no
hearing is sought, the motion need not linger on the docket; after 90 days, the judge
“may strike the motion without notice.” Id. Here, after the circuit court dismissed
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 22-3235 Page 2
Wayne Patterson’s state lawsuit, he filed a motion to reconsider—but did not request a
hearing date. The trial judge, relying on Local Rule 5(C), struck the motion, leaving the
judgment against Patterson intact. Patterson alleges he did not learn of this until it was
too late to appeal or seek other state-court relief. So he turned to federal court, suing
Circuit Judge John Jason Chambers and claiming that Local Rule 5(C) violated his rights
to due process and equal protection. But the district court dismissed the action,
concluding, among other things, that judicial immunity barred Patterson’s suit against
Judge Chambers and that Patterson had not stated a claim for relief on any remaining
theory. Patterson’s complaint also mentioned two unnamed state-court employees, but
the district court dismissed them from the suit because Patterson did not say what they
had done. We affirm.
The details of Patterson’s state-court complaint do not matter for this appeal. His
federal complaint cited 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 2000d and sought damages, and
injunctions prohibiting the use of Local Rule 5(C) and to reopen his state case.
On Judge Chambers’s motion, the district court dismissed the complaint. The
court held that challenges to Judge Chambers’s actions, all of which took place in his
judicial capacity, were barred by judicial immunity. Further, the court reasoned,
Patterson alleged no plausible basis to conclude that the local rule was unconstitutional
and could not be used in future cases. And to the extent that Patterson sought review of
the dismissal of the state lawsuit and the order striking his motion to reconsider, the
district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to do so under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine .
Finally, the court concluded that Patterson stated no claim against the unnamed state
employees because his complaint did not attribute any specific wrongdoing to them.
On appeal, Patterson argues that judicial immunity does not bar his claims
against Judge Chambers. We disagree. The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity
confers complete immunity from suit for acts performed in the judge’s judicial capacity.
Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 660 (7th Cir. 2005). Applying a local rule and striking a
motion are acts performed in the judge’s judicial capacity. Similarly, Judge Chambers’s
alleged failure to provide notice of his order striking Patterson’s motion is an act
entitled to absolute immunity. See id. at 661–62 (concluding that a judge’s failure to send
notice of an order is a judicial duty subject to absolute judicial immunity).
Next, Patterson asserts that Local Rule 5(C) is unconstitutional, and that state
judges cannot apply it to make him monitor the docket and seek a hearing date on his
motions in (unspecified) future cases. In his federal complaint, Patterson asked the

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 22-3235 Page 3
court to enjoin “any further use or implementation” of Local Rule 5(C). The district
court ruled that Patterson failed to state a claim for relief because he did not identify
any plausible ground to conclude that Local Rule 5(C) is unconstitutional. We uphold
the dismissal of this request for injunctive relief on another ground: lack of standing.
Although neither the parties nor the district court addressed standing, we have
an independent obligation to inspect, and remain within, jurisdictional boundaries.
Gadelhak v. AT&T Servs., Inc., 950 F.3d 458, 461 (7th Cir. 2020) (“If a plaintiff lacks
standing, a federal court lacks jurisdiction.”). Plaintiffs must demonstrate standing
separately for each requested form of relief. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190,
2210 (2021). To have standing to seek prospective injunctive relief, Patterson must show
a real and immediate threat of future injury. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,
105 (1983). “[P]ast injury alone is insufficient,” as is a threat of injury that is solely
conjectural or hypothetical. Simic v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 734, 738 (7th Cir. 2017).
Here, Patterson has not alleged that he has any suit pending in the Circuit Court
of Illinois, let alone that a judge would apply Local Rule 5(C) to strike his motions in
any future case. See Sierakowski v. Ryan, 223 F.3d 444–45 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that
plaintiff lacked standing to challenge defendant’s enforcement of state-law because
prospects of future injury were purely speculative). Absent a plausible allegation of a
real and immediate future injury, Patterson lacks standing to seek injunctive relief.
And to the extent that Patterson seeks a federal order reopening his state case,
the district court had no ability to provide such relief. Because lower federal courts
(unlike the Supreme Court) lack appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, they
cannot review claims “by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by
state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and
inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Here, the district court could not order
Judge Chambers to reopen Patterson’s state case because doing so would require the
district court to review and reject a state court’s judgment.
Finally, the district court was correct to dismiss the unnamed defendants.
Patterson’s complaint did not identify their role in the dispute, and on appeal Patterson
provides no further detail that would warrant a remand on this point.
We have considered Patterson’s remaining arguments; none merits discussion.
We end by making a slight modification to the district court’s judgment, which did not

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 22-3235 Page 4
specify whether the dismissal of each claim is with or without prejudice. Dismissals on
jurisdictional grounds are without prejudice allowing a plaintiff to raise the claims in a
proper tribunal that has jurisdiction, if any. Flynn v. FCA US LLC, 39 F.4th 946, 954 (7th
Cir. 2022). Given Patterson’s lack of Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief
against future applications of Local Rule 5(C), and given the Rooker-Feldman doctrine’s
limits on reviewing state-court decisions, there is no federal jurisdiction over Patterson’s
claims seeking injunctive relief or to reopen his state case. We therefore MODIFY the
judgment to reflect a dismissal without prejudice as to those claims; all other claims in
Patterson’s complaint are dismissed with prejudice. As modified, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --