Scott Jenkins v. Fayette County Circuit Court

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 4, 2024*
Decided April 5, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1512
SCOTT JENKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FAYETTE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
No. 3:21-CV-00434-MAB
Mark A. Beatty,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Scott Jenkins appeals the dismissal of his complaint against the Fayette County
Circuit Court in Illinois for alleged record tampering. The district court determined that
Jenkins failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. We affirm the dismissal
* 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. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 23-1512 Page 2
of Jenkins’s suit but conclude that the proper basis is the absence of federal
subject-matter jurisdiction.
Jenkins sued several entities in the Fayette County Circuit Court to settle a
property dispute. After several years of litigation, Jenkins appealed the dismissal of his
state-court complaint. During the appeal, Jenkins noticed discrepancies between two
records that were transmitted to the state appellate court.
Believing the inconsistencies to be evidence of something pernicious, Jenkins
brought this suit in federal court, complaining of record tampering. See 720 ILCS 5/32-8.
(He believed that he could not bring this claim in state court because the state trial court
handling the property dispute litigation barred him from further filings in that case.)
The district court dismissed his suit and rejected his attempt to amend the complaint. It
concluded that the circuit court itself was not a suable entity. Moreover, Jenkins’s
attempt to amend his complaint to name additional defendants (his state-court lawyer
and the lawyer’s firm) and to add additional claims (that his lawyer engaged in
malpractice and conspired in the alleged record tampering) would not cure his failure
to state a claim. The district court also denied Jenkins’s request, raised in a motion to
alter or amend the judgment, to substitute the Fayette County Circuit Court Clerk as the
proper defendant. Jenkins then took this appeal.
As a threshold matter, we must first evaluate whether federal jurisdiction exists.
Even though no party has raised the issue, we must police our own jurisdiction and
cannot resolve cases without it. Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 312 F.3d 876, 879
(7th Cir. 2002) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577, 583 (1999)). The
only claim that Jenkins raises in his complaint is one concerning record tampering that
he asserts is prohibited by Illinois law. Although he briefly mentions having a right of
access to the courts, we understand him to suggest that detail only to explain why he
did not perceive the state court to be an available forum, not as an independent claim
for which he seeks relief. But Jenkins’s view that the state court is unwilling to entertain
his claim does not confer federal jurisdiction because federal courts have limited
jurisdiction, defined by federal statute. Boim v. Am. Muslims for Palestine, 9 F.4th 545,
550–51 (7th Cir. 2021). His arguments on appeal, including that the district court should
have allowed him to add the court clerk as a defendant, would not cure this
jurisdictional defect because the claim does not arise under federal law. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. Jenkins has not identified any other basis for jurisdiction, and none is obvious.
We end by making a slight modification to the district court’s judgment, which
dismissed the case with prejudice. Dismissals on jurisdictional grounds are without

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-1512 Page 3
prejudice to allow a plaintiff to raise the claims in the proper tribunal. Flynn v. FCA US
LLC, 39 F.4th 946, 954 (7th Cir. 2022). We therefore MODIFY the judgment to reflect a
dismissal without prejudice. As so modified, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --