Alex Kaganovich v. Adam Stern

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 5, 2026*
Decided May 7, 2026
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-2427
ALEX KAGANOVICH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ADAM STERN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 25-CV-7499
Joan B. Gottschall,
Judge.
O R D E R
Alex Kaganovich appeals the dismissal of his civil action seeking damages for
harm he alleges he experienced as a result of an Illinois state judge’s determination of
* The appellee was not served with process and is not participating in this appeal.
We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief and record
adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-2427 Page 2
Kaganovich’s need for a public guardian. The district court dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
We draw the following facts from Kaganovich’s complaint and the documents
attached thereto, and we take judicial notice of the court records for the state court
proceedings to which Kaganovich’s complaint refers. See J.B. v. Woodard, 997 F.3d 714,
717 (7th Cir. 2021); Forrest v. Universal Sav. Bank, F.A., 507 F.3d 540, 542 (7th Cir. 2007). In
2021, an Illinois state court placed Kaganovich under guardianship. Kaganovich’s
guardian was a local attorney, Adam Stern, whom Kaganovich alleges was also the
state court judge’s personal attorney. At some point before 2023, the Public Guardian’s
Office sold Kaganovich’s residence and removed his personal belongings, including his
passport. Kaganovich moved to an assisted-living facility. In 2023, Kaganovich
underwent a neuropsychological evaluation, and the doctor stated that he had adequate
capacity to make decisions for himself. In a subsequent hearing concerning his ongoing
guardianship, the state court judge considered the doctor’s testimony, but did not lift
the guardianship order.
Kaganovich then sued Stern in federal court. In a sparse complaint, Kaganovich
alleged that the state court judge should have relieved him of the guardianship or, in
the alternative, entered a final judgment so he could appeal the decision in the Illinois
appellate court. He sought as relief an order from the district court removing the
guardianship. The district court screened his complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and
concluded that Kaganovich failed to explain adequately the nature of his complaint or
the basis of federal jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failing
to state a claim.
Kaganovich then filed an amended complaint, adding allegations that the Public
Guardian’s Office wrongfully disposed of his property without his permission. He thus
included damages alongside removal of the guardianship in his sought relief. The court
struck the amended complaint for its failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8(a) and 10(b). The court cautioned Kaganovich that to avoid dismissal, he
would need to file a second amended complaint that demonstrated his entitlement to
relief and established the court’s grounds for jurisdiction.
Kaganovich then filed a second amended complaint, which included
substantially the same allegations. The court dismissed the case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, noting that the complaint included neither a basis for jurisdiction, as
required by Rule 8(a)(1), nor a short and plain statement of his claim, as required by
Rule 8(a)(2). Further, the court said that it could not infer any basis for federal subject

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-2427 Page 3
matter jurisdiction “given that plaintiff is seeking money damages from a person who
appears to be a citizen of Illinois.”
Kaganovich appeals, arguing solely that the district court had jurisdiction over
his claim that the state court should have removed his guardianship. But he is mistaken.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits federal courts other than the Supreme Court from
entertaining appeals of state court decisions. D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). Therefore, district courts do not
have jurisdiction over suits seeking review of state court guardianship proceedings.
See Struck v. Cook Cnty. Pub. Guardian, 508 F.3d 858, 859 (7th Cir. 2007); Bach v. Milwaukee
Cnty., 490 F. App’x 806, 807 (7th Cir. 2012).
The only constitutional claim Kaganovich raises is the state court judge’s alleged
deprivation of his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. The Sixth Amendment,
however, applies only to criminal prosecutions. And even construing Kaganovich’s
allegation as a violation of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a civil matter,
the Seventh Amendment has not been incorporated against the states by virtue of the
Fourteenth Amendment. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 765 n.13 (2010);
Minneapolis & St. Louis R.R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211, 217 (1916).
Kaganovich’s complaint seeks damages, and we held in Gilbank v. Wood Cnty.
Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 111 F.4th 754 (7th Cir. 2024) (en banc), that the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine does not prevent awards of damages for injuries caused by incorrect
decisions of state courts. But Kaganovich does not explain how Stern, as his guardian,
could be personally liable for acts of the state judge or the Public Guardian’s Office.
Indeed, Kaganovich’s appellate brief does not say anything about damages, thereby
forfeiting whatever claim to them he might otherwise have had. See Bradley v. Vill. of
Univ. Park, Ill., 59 F.4th 887, 897 (7th Cir. 2023).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --