The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LEON CORTEZ FERGUSON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 23-cv-1925-NJR
NEIL SCHROEDER,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Leon Cortez Ferguson, Jr., who is currently a pretrial detainee at the Madison
County Jail, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Ferguson alleges Judge Neil Schroeder allowed an
attorney who had a conflict of interest to represent him, in violation of his Sixth Amendment
rights.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a
complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such
relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Complaint
In his Complaint, Ferguson makes the following allegations: Ferguson had a pending
criminal case before Judge Neil Schroeder. As of June 22, 2022, Judge Schroeder was aware
that Ferguson’s attorney also represented the victim in Ferguson’s case, which created a
conflict of interest (Doc. 1, p. 5). Ferguson believes Judge Schroder was working in conspiracy
with the attorneys in his case to sabotage Ferguson’s criminal case (Id. at pp. 5-6). He believes
that he was denied his right to a fair trial because he was in jail from June 2022 until January
26, 2023, and his lawyer failed to provide him any update on his case. Ferguson indicates that
he now represents himself and is being discriminated against, although he fails to indicate
how Judge Schroeder’s actions amount to discrimination. He alleges that his rights under the
Sixth Amendment were violated, and that Judge Schroeder failed to properly handle his case
and was biased towards him. Ferguson seeks monetary damages, including damages for
mental and emotional distress and money he spent on commissary and phone calls, and other
expenses he paid while in jail.
Discussion
Simply put, Ferguson’s claims against Judge Schroeder fail to state a claim. It has long
been established that judges, being sued solely for judicial acts, are protected by absolute
judicial immunity. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); Richman v. Sheahan, 270 F.3d 430,
434 (7th Cir. 2001); Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 660-61 (7th Cir. 2005) (“If a judge errs
‘through inadvertence or otherwise, a party’s remedy is through appellate process.’”).
Clearly, Judge Schroeder’s decisions regarding the assignment of counsel in this case are
judicial acts. Thus, he is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
Because Judge Schroeder is not amenable to a suit for damages under Section 1983,
the defects in Ferguson's Complaint cannot be cured by permitting him to file an Amended
Complaint. An amendment to the pleadings is futile. See Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 608
(7th Cir. 2013).
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Ferguson’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
If Ferguson wishes to appeal this Order, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court
within 30 days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). If Ferguson does choose to
appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the
appeal. See FED. R. App. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725-
26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999). He must list each of the
issues he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal, and a motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis must set forth the issues he plans to present on appeal. See FED. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C).
Moreover, if the appeal is found to be nonmeritorious, Ferguson may also incur another
“strike.” A proper and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
may toll the 30-day appeal deadline. FED. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed
no more than 28 days after the entry of judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be
extended.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 30, 2023
Tees Meet!
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge