The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHN L. ORR, IV,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 23-cv-90-JPG
SHARON P. MEHRTENS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff John L. Orr, IV’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) and motion to amend his prayer for relief (Doc. 7). In this
case, Orr asserts that defendant Sharon P. Mehrtens was appointed his guardian in violation of
his due process rights and has since been receiving Orr’s pension payments as his fiduciary. He
asks the Court to terminate the guardianship and refund to him the money Mehrtens has received
on his behalf. In his motion for leave to amend, he seeks to increase the amount of money he
seeks in his prayer for relief (Doc. 7).
A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma
pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious or fails to state a
claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). The test for determining if an action is frivolous or
without merit is whether the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in support
of the claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241,
1247 (7th Cir. 1983). An action fails to state a claim if it does not plead “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). When assessing a petition to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court should inquire
into the merits of the plaintiff’s claims, and if the court finds them to be frivolous, it should deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982). The
Court is satisfied from Orr’s affidavit that he is indigent. However, the Court does not have
jurisdiction over the claim he attempts to bring in this case.
Orr’s guardianship, including guardianship of his person and his estate, were address by
the St. Clair County Circuit Court in the case of In re Orr, No. 15-P-26. In that case, Orr was
determined to be a disabled adult, and a guardian—Mehrtens—was appointed for him under
Illinois state law. While that case has been technically closed, it is still called for annual report
hearings, the next of which is scheduled for April 11, 2023.
Orr’s call for this Court to review those proceedings violates the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, established in the cases Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462
(1983), prevents a party from attempting to relitigate in federal district court a judgment entered
in state court. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486; Remer v. Burlington Area Sch. Dist., 205 F.3d 990, 996
(7th Cir. 2000). “In its most straight-forward presentment, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars
federal jurisdiction when the federal plaintiff alleges that [his] injury was caused by a state court
judgment,” Remer, 205 F.3d at 996; accord Schmitt v. Schmitt, 324 F.3d 484, 486 (7th Cir.
2003), or where the state and federal court actions are so inextricably intertwined that “success in
the federal court would require overturning the state court decision.” Epps v. Creditnet, Inc., 320
F.3d 756, 759 (7th Cir. 2003). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents a federal district court
from reviewing state court disability and guardianship orders as well as ongoing state court
supervision of management by the guardian. See Orr v. Walker, No. 16-cv-178-NJR, 2016 WL
1183725, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2016); Sykes v. Cook Cty. Circuit Court Prob. Div., No. 14-C-
7459, 2015 WL 1094889, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2015).
Hearing this case would necessarily require this Court to consider the propriety of the
state court’s competency decision, the appointment of a guardian, and the ongoing review of the
guardian’s performance. Accepting any of Orr’s arguments would require overturning those
state court decisions and improperly interfering with the state court proceedings. Thus, the Court
does not have jurisdiction to hear this case.
Accordingly, the Court:
• DENIES Orr’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3);
• DISMISSES this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
• DENIES as moot Orr’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (Doc. 7): and
• DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 17, 2023
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE