Anjelica R. James v. TERRENCE V. SHARKEY and SARAH DONOVAN

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 19, 2025*
Decided May 19, 2025
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2718
ANJELICA R. JAMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TERRENCE V. SHARKEY and SARAH
DONOVAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:24-cv-03751
Georgia N. Alexakis,
Judge.
O R D E R
Anjelica James appeals the judgment dismissing her suit against a guardian
ad litem and a juvenile court judge for alleged violations of her and her child’s
constitutional rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district judge dismissed her claims on
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 24-2718 Page 2
grounds that she could not represent her son in court and that both defendants are
immune from suit. We affirm.
James brought this wide-ranging civil rights suit on behalf of herself and her
minor child against her child’s guardian ad litem, Sarah Donovan, and a juvenile court
judge, Terrence Sharkey. James alleged that Sharkey charged her with contempt of
court and subjected her to arbitrary civil infractions, in violation of her First and Fourth
Amendment rights; and imposed legal representation on her and ignored her right to
face her accuser because the “People of Illinois” is a legal fiction, in violation of her
Sixth Amendment rights. She also alleged that Sharkey and Donovan removed her son
from her custody without notice or an opportunity to be heard, in violation of her and
her son’s Fifth Amendment rights.
Judge Harjani granted James leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed
the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). As a threshold matter, the
judge explained that James could not appear on her child’s behalf; claims brought on
his behalf had to be made with the assistance of counsel. And the judge dismissed
James’s personal claims because both Sharkey and Donovan had absolute immunity
from § 1983 suits for actions taken in a judicial capacity or at the court’s direction.
James amended her complaint, and Judge Alexakis (to whom the case was
reassigned) dismissed it with prejudice, determining that it suffered the “same defects”
as her first complaint.
On appeal, James first contends that she should be able to represent her minor
child’s interests. But nonlawyers are prohibited from representing another person, and
that rule extends to a parent attempting to represent her minor child pro se. Elustra v.
Mineo, 595 F.3d 699, 705 (7th Cir. 2010).
James also argues that Sharkey and Donovan are not immune from suit. But
judges and guardians ad litem are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for actions
taken in their official capacities. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355–56 (1978)
(judges); Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967, 970 (7th Cir. 2009) (guardians ad litem). As
Judge Alexakis pointed out, James’s amended complaint took issue with the conduct of
Sharkey and Donovan “during juvenile court proceedings”—that is, conduct the two
defendants performed in their official capacities. Even if we credit James’s allegations in
her appellate brief—that Sharkey wrongly apprehended James for “asserting her rights”
and arbitrarily removed her child from her custody without due process, and that

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-2718 Page 3
Donovan facilitated her child’s removal and placement “in dilapidated, crime infested
conditions”—as consistent with her amended complaint, see Smith v. Knox Cnty. Jail,
666 F.3d 1037, 1039 (7th Cir. 2012), James still fails to explain how these actions
exceeded the bounds of the defendants’ official roles.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --