Thomas Edward Martin v. JOHN R. GREENWOOD and MARY JO STVAN

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 10, 2026*
Decided February 10, 2026
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1101
THOMAS EDWARD MARTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN R. GREENWOOD and MARY JO
STVAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 24 CV 1421
Lindsay C. Jenkins,
Judge.
O R D E R
Thomas Martin stole money from his employer-sponsored retirement savings
plan and was convicted in state court of theft and wire fraud. He later brought a
sprawling complaint against the prosecutor and the plan’s administrator, asserting
violations of his civil rights, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an interpleader claim, see 28 U.S.C.
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 25-1101 Page 2
§ 1335; F ED. R. C IV. P. 22, and a state-law breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. The district
court dismissed some of the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and others as
barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment but modify the dismissal of
the interpleader claim to be without prejudice.
We recount the facts as set forth in Martin’s complaint as well as the state
appellate court’s ruling from his criminal appeal, People v. Martin, 2022 IL App (1st)
191239-U (May 20, 2022), of which we take judicial notice. See Fosnight v. Jones, 41 F.4th
916, 922 (7th Cir. 2022). Martin owned a metal-working company, which in 2007
established a 401(k) plan through Merit Benefits Group, Inc., a company that specializes
in retirement and qualified plan services. Martin withdrew funds from the plan in 2010
and 2013. Based on these withdrawals, he was indicted in Illinois state court for theft
and wire fraud. The case went to trial in 2019. The prosecutor for the case was John
Greenwood, then an Assistant Attorney General in Illinois. At trial, the state presented
testimony from Merit Benefits Group’s owner, Mary Jo Stvan. Martin was convicted by
a jury on both counts and later sentenced to 30 months’ probation.
In 2024, Martin sued Greenwood, Stvan, and Definiti LLC (Merit Benefits
Group’s successor in interest). He brought three claims: an interpleader claim, seeking a
declaration that the stolen money was his property; a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that Stvan provided false testimony at Greenwood’s request; and a state-law
claim for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that Stvan mishandled the retirement plan.
The district court dismissed all the claims. The court concluded that it lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the interpleader claim under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, see Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983), given that Martin’s request for a declaration would contradict the
state court’s criminal judgment. As for Martin’s § 1983 claim against Greenwood and
Stvan, the court dismissed the request for damages as barred by the statute of
limitations and the request for injunctive relief as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Having dismissed the claims presenting federal questions, the court declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
On appeal, Martin first argues that the district court erred in applying
Rooker-Feldman to his interpleader claim because he was not complaining of an injury
caused by a state court’s judgment. But this argument is beside the point because
Martin’s interpleader claim does not present any justiciable controversy. A justiciable
controversy does not exist where there is no risk that the interpleader plaintiff faces a
credible threat of competing liability from multiple parties, see State Farm Life Ins. Co. v.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1101 Page 3
Jonas, 775 F.3d 867, 870 (7th Cir. 2014), cited in Braid v. Stilley, 142 F.4th 956, 961 (7th Cir.
2025), and Martin concedes in his reply brief that the purported claimants—his former
employees—have not actually asserted any claims against him and he does not expect
them to do so. The interpleader claim, then, was properly dismissed for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction. But the district court incorrectly dismissed this claim with prejudice,
so we modify the judgment to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. See Mains
v. Citibank, N.A., 852 F.3d 669, 678–79 (7th Cir. 2017).
As for the dismissal of his § 1983 claim for damages, Martin contends that the
court erred by not applying the five-year statute of limitations applicable to claims for
fraudulent concealment under Illinois law. See 725 ILCS 5/13-215. But the statute of
limitations for any claim brought under § 1983, regardless of its nature, is determined
by the general statute of limitations governing personal injuries in the forum state.
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007). Since Illinois has a two-year statute of
limitations for personal injury claims, Herrera v. Cleveland, 8 F.4th 493, 495 n.2 (7th Cir.
2021), Martin’s request for damages was time-barred.
Finally, regarding the dismissal of his state-law claim for breach of fiduciary
duty by Stvan and Definiti, Martin argues that the district court should have asserted
diversity jurisdiction over the claim. But his complaint says nothing about Stvan’s
citizenship, so he failed to meet his burden of alleging that the parties are completely
diverse. See Dalton v. Teva N. Am., 891 F.3d 687, 690 (7th Cir. 2018).
The rest of Martin’s arguments, to the extent we can discern them, lack merit.
We MODIFY the disposition of the district court to reflect a dismissal of the
interpleader claim without prejudice and AFFIRM the judgment as modified.

-- 3 of 3 --