Opinion
Case No. 06-CV-2177.
April 10, 2007
ORDER
On March 20, 2007, Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal filed 13 Reports and Recommendations (#91, #92, #93, #94, #95, #96, #97, #98, #99, #100, #101, #102, #103) in the above cause. On April 2, 2007, Plaintiff, Robert Todd Perkins, filed his Objection to All Reports and Recommendations (#104). This court has carefully considered the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and Plaintiff's Objections. Following this thorough de novo review, this court accepts the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and adopts all of his recommendations. In his Objection, Plaintiff also requested 45 days to file an amended complaint. That request will be granted. However, this court cautions Plaintiff that if he fails to file an amended complaint which complies with the recommendations included in the Reports and Recommendations, the amended complaint will be dismissed with prejudice by this court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Reports and Recommendations (#91, #92, #93, #94, #95, #96, #97, #98, #99, #100, #101, #102, #103) are accepted by this court.
(2) The Motion to Dismiss (#76) filed by Defendants Judge Theodis Lewis, Judge Stuart Shiffman, Judge Patrick Kelley, Judge John Belz, and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is GRANTED. The claims against these Defendants are hereby dismissed, with prejudice. Accordingly, Defendants Lewis, Shiffman, Kelley, Belz, and Madigan are terminated as parties to this action.
(3) The Motions to Dismiss (#14, #15, #30, #41, #46, #54, #58, #62, #66, #69, #85, #86) filed by Defendants David Elmore, Debra Elmore, Gillespie Police Department, Deborah Tuttle, David Tuttle, Greg Scott, Springfield Police Department and detectives, Amy Schmidt, John Schmidt, Brian Otwell, Byron Sims, Broderick Benson, Scott Harrigan, and Porsha Renee Harrigan (Perkins) are hereby GRANTED. The claims against these Defendants are dismissed, without prejudice. Plaintiff is allowed to file an amended complaint which complies with the recommendations included in the Reports and Recommendations, including naming the proper party. This court emphasizes that the Magistrate Judge is correct that Plaintiff, a private citizen, cannot compel enforcement of criminal laws and cannot state a claim against Defendants by alleging violations of criminal law and listing criminal statutes. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge is entirely correct that Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action by alleging a violation of the Citizens Protection Act of 1998. Also, the Magistrate Judge is correct that Plaintiff cannot bring claims on behalf of his minor children unless he has an attorney. Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge is correct that Plaintiff must plead sufficient information, as to each Defendant, to allow the court and the defendants to understand what the claims are. This court additionally notes that it agrees with the Magistrate Judge that, to the extent that Plaintiff may be challenging state court rulings regarding custody and child support, this court does not have jurisdiction to revisit such state court orders.
(4) Plaintiff's request for 45 days to file an amended complaint (#105) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff is allowed until May 24, 2007, to file his amended complaint. This court again cautions Plaintiff that if he fails to file an amended complaint which complies with the recommendations included in the Reports and Recommendations, the amended complaint will be dismissed with prejudice by this court.
(5) This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.