Petition for Writ of Certiorari — David Martin, Petitioner v. Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, et al.

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

App. 1: Opinion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

2

Martin v. Raoul, No. l:22-cv-06296 (N.D. Ill. May 23,2024)

App. 2: Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

3

Martin v. Raoul, No. 24-1915 (7th Cir. Sept 3,2025)

App. 3: Order Denying Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

4

United States Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit (Oct 6,2025)

App. 4: Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

..................... 5

Issued October 14,2025

Pg- 1

App. 1: Opinion of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois

Pg-2

Case: l:22-cv-06296 Document #: 61 Filed: 05/23/24 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #:460

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1

Eastern Division

David Martin

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-06296

Honorable Sunil R. Harjani

Kwame Raoul, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, May 23,2024:

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: For the reasons stated in

the Order entered this day, Defendants' motion to dismiss [20] pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is granted without prejudice. The Amended Complaint [10] is

dismissed. Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [34] and Motions for

Partial Summary Judgment [45][50] are denied as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed

notice(lxs,)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: l:22-cv-06296 Document #: 62 Filed: 05/23/24 Page 1 of 4 PagelD #:461

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID MARTIN,

Case No. 22 C 6296

Plaintiff,

v.

Honorable Sunil R. Harjani

ATTORNEY GENERAL KWAME RAOUL,

JUDGE GREGORY EMMETT AHERN JR.,

UNNAMED COOK COUNTY CLERKS,

COOK COUNTY,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court are: (1) Defendants Gregory Emmett Ahem Jr. and Attorney General

Kwame Raoul’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [20] pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [34]; and (3)

Plaintiff’s Motions for Partial Summary Judgment [45][50]. Defendants move to dismiss the

Amended Complaint based on federal abstention doctrines and immunity. For the reasons stated

below, the motion [20] is granted and the case is dismissed without prejudice as to all counts.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [34] and Motions for Partial Summary

Judgment [45] [50] are denied as moot.1

Discussion

Defendants Ahem and Raoul move to dismiss the Complaint based on Rules 12(b)(1) and

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Rule 12(b)(1) motion provides for dismissal

of a claim based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). “If the federal

courts lack subject matter jurisdiction, then [they] can go no further and must dismiss the suit.”

Hadzi-Tanovic v. Johnson, 62 F.4th 394, 399 (7th Cir. 2023). “A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests

whether the complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted.” Richards v. Mitcheff, 696

F.3d 635, 637 (7th Cir. 2012). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In

reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court “construe[s]

it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, acceptfs] well-pleaded facts as true, and

draw[s] all inferences in [the nonmoving party's] favor.” Bell v. City of Chicago, 835 F.3d 736,738

(7th Cir. 2016) {quoting Reynolds v. CB Sports Bar, Inc., 623 F.3d 1143, 1146 (7th Cir. 2010)).

1 The Court notes that even though Plaintiff filed a notice of removal on November 14,2022 in the

state court proceeding, this Court did not receive the underlying action via removal, for reasons

that are currently unknown. Instead, Plaintiff filed a new complaint (this action) in the Northern

District of Illinois on November 10, 2022.

Case: l:22-cv-06296 Document#: 62 Filed: 05/23/24 Page 2 of 4 PagelD #:462

Defendant Ahem alleges this suit should be dismissed because: (1) this Court lacks

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Younger doctrine, or the principles of federal

abstention; and/or (2) Plaintiff cannot state a claim based on judicial immunity. Defendant Raoul

argues that there cannot be a viable claim against him based on sovereign immunity and that

Plaintiff cannot properly challenge the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act’s

constitutionality. The Court addresses each of these arguments in turn.

A. Federal Abstention Doctrine

As instructed by the Seventh Circuit, this Court must first resolve the question of federal

subject-matter jurisdiction, namely federal abstention, before turning to the non-jurisdictional

defenses of immunity. Sharif v. Mackoff, 2023 WL 3971410, at *2 (7th Cir. 2023). The Seventh

Circuit’s holding in J.B. v. Woodard is instructive. 997 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2021). In Woodard, the

plaintiff filed suit in district court alleging due process violations and a constitutional challenge to

a section of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Id. at 719. When plaintiff filed

suit, the state court appeal remained pending. Id. at 718-19. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that

none of the established abstention doctrines were well-suited to this case due to the timing of the

federal suit and the constitutional claims alleged:

“Start with Younger abstention... The doctrine applies in only three limited

categories of cases, none of which fits exactly here: where federal court intervention

would intrude into ongoing state criminal proceedings, into state-initiated civil

enforcement proceedings akin to criminal prosecutions, or into civil proceedings

implicating a state's interest in enforcing orders and judgments of its courts. Nor is

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine spot on... Because [plaintiff] filed his federal lawsuit

while the domestic relations court's proceedings [] remained ongoing, he is not a

state-court loser... And the domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction is

not a perfect match either. This exception covers a narrow range of issues,

involving the granting of divorce, decrees of alimony, and child custody orders.”

Id. at 721-23 (cleaned up).

While no abstention doctrine fit perfectly, the Seventh Circuit held that adjudicating plaintiff’s

claims in district court would run contrary to the equity, comity, and federalism principles

underlying abstention doctrines. Id. at 721. As the Seventh Circuit stated, federal courts must

decline to exercise jurisdiction “where doing so would intrude upon the independence of the state

courts and their ability to resolve the cases before them.” Id. at 721-22 (cleaned up).

Here, Plaintiff filed suit in federal court against Judge Ahem, Attorney General Raoul,

unnamed Cook County clerks, and Cook County alleging due process violations and constitutional

challenges to a section of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act and Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 63(A)(8). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the due process violations he

suffered—failure to receive a fair impartial hearing, failure to be provided videoconference hearing

information, failure to receive proper certified records for appeal, and failure of Judge Ahem to

2

Case: l:22-cv-06296 Document#: 62 Filed: 05/23/24 Page 3 of 4 PagelD #:463

certify a bystander report—interfered with his ability to appeal in state court.2 Plaintiff requests

that this Court review the procedures of the state court, order a new hearing, force Judge Ahem to

certify the bystander report, and hold sections of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage

Act and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63(A)(8) unconstitutional. Plaintiff filed this action while

the state court action and appeals were pending in 2022.3 As in Woodard, it is not enough for

Plaintiff to invoke § 1983 and point to constitutional violations to compel the adjudication of

claims that would inject a federal court into a state court proceeding. Plaintiff here seeks a

favorable federal court judgment so that he can influence ongoing state court decision making,

which is exactly what federal abstention seeks to prevent. Woodard, 997 F.3d at 722 (“Allowing

that federal disruption and interference would offend the principles on which the abstention

doctrines rest.”). State courts are also perfectly capable of adjudicating whether state statutes

violate the federal constitution. See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 605 (1975). For these

reasons, this Court must decline jurisdiction based on federal abstention.

B. Immunity and Failure to Effectuate Service

Alternatively, Plaintiff’s claims would still fail based on the doctrines ofjudicial immunity,

sovereign immunity, and failure to effectuate service. As noted above, Plaintiff’s ten count

complaint alleges due process violations and extrinsic fraud against Judge Ahem, Attorney General

Raoul, unnamed Cook County Clerks, and Cook County. Each of these defendants must be

dismissed.

Plaintiff initially brings claims against Judge Ahem for his conduct in the underlying

action. Namely, Plaintiff takes issue with Judge Ahern’s decisions to exercise jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s case and not to certify his bystander report. A judge enjoys absolute immunity for an

act or admission taken in their judicial capacity. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Kowalski v. Boliker,

893 F.3d 987, 999 (7th Cir. 2018). While a judge does not enjoy immunity if they act in “clear

absence of all jurisdiction,” immunity remains if a judge simply acts in error or in excess of their

authority. Kowalski, 893 F.3d at 997 (citing Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357 (1978)). Judge

Ahem was assigned this case on November 18, 2022. He held motion hearings and reviewed the

exhibits and motions filed on the docket. This included denying Plaintiff’s motion to substitute

Judge Ahem for cause. Nothing on the state court docket indicates that Judge Ahem acted in “clear

absence of all jurisdiction.” Instead, Judge Ahem appeared to act squarely within his jurisdiction,

2 The Court’s review of the state court docket indicates that since the filing of this action, the appeal

has been terminated, Judge Ahem held Plaintiff in contempt of court, and judgment was entered.

Nevertheless, abstention doctrines require analysis of the state court docket at the time this district

court action was filed.

3 In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the Court may also “consider... information that is properly

subject to judicial notice.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013). Here, the

Court takes judicial notice of the documents from the state court action because they form the basis

for Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Daniel v. Cook Cnty., 833 F.3d 728,

742 (7th Cir. 2016) (“Courts routinely take judicial notice of the actions of other courts or the

contents of filings in other courts.”); Fletcher v. Menard Corr. Ctr, 623 F.3d 1172, 1173 (7th Cir.

2010) (courts may “take judicial notice of prior proceedings in a case involving the same litigant.”).

3

Case: l:22-cv-06296 Document #: 62 Filed: 05/23/24 Page 4 of 4 PagelD #:464

waiting until after the Illinois Appellate Court dismissed the appeal to continue the case and hold

Plaintiff in contempt. Judge Ahem is afforded absolute judicial immunity for the actions in the

Amended Complaint and must be dismissed.

Defendant Attorney General Kwame Raoul also must be dismissed because of sovereign

immunity. Under the 11th Amendment, the sovereign cannot be sued without its consent. U.S.

Const, amend. XI; see also Driftless Area Land Conservancy v. Valcq, 16 F.4th 508, 520 (7th Cir.

2021). “The Amendment bars actions in federal court against a state, state agencies, or state

officials acting in their official capacity.” Driftless, 16 F.4th at 520 (cleaned up). Here, Plaintiff is

suing the Attorney General based on the alleged unconstitutional nature of Illinois statute 750ILCS

5/513 and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63(A)(8). Plaintiff invokes Ex parte Young (the exception

allowing a state official to be sued for enforcing state law) as a means of saving their argument.

This is unavailing. The Amended Complaint is void of any allegations that Attorney General Raoul

enforced either Illinois statute 750 ILCS 5/513 or Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63(A)(8) and thus

Ex parte Young cannot apply. Id. at 520-21 (citing Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 68 (1985)).

Thus, he is afforded sovereign immunity and the claims against him must be dismissed.

Last but certainly not least, Plaintiff brings claims against unnamed Cook County Clerks

and Cook County. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the

complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss

the action without prejudice against that defendant.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The decision of whether

to dismiss is inherently discretionary. Cardenas v. City of Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001, 1005 (7th Cir.

2011). Plaintiff initially filed this suit on November 10, 2022. At that time Plaintiff only served

summons as to Judge Ahem, Attorney General Raoul, and Amell Thompson. The Court then

granted Plaintiff leave to file the Amended Complaint which raised claims against Judge Ahem,

Attorney General Raoul, as well as unnamed Cook County clerks, and Cook County. Plaintiff

again served summons but only to Judge Ahem and Attorney General Raoul. Over the last one

year and two months, Plaintiff never issued summons for the unnamed Cook County Clerks and

Cook County. To this day, Plaintiff has failed to notify these parties of the lawsuit filed against

them. Therefore, these parties must be dismissed.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [20] pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is granted without prejudice.4 The Amended Complaint [10] is dismissed.

Civil case terminated.

SO ORDERED.

/

Dated: May 23, 2024

Sunil R. Haijani

United States District Judge

4 Dismissal on abstention grounds is “without prejudice to the plaintiffs right to raise the same contentions

in a state tribunal.” Huiras v. Cafferty, 2023 WL 4842323, at *3 (7th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up).

4

App. 2: Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh

Circuit

Pg- 3

Case: 24-1915

Document: 00714637376

Filed: 10/14/2025

Pages: 4

(1 of 7)

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Muiteb JBfates (Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

CERTIFIED COPY

Submitted September 2, 2025*

Decided September 3, 2025

Before

FRANK H. E ASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge

DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge

No. 24-1915

DAVID MARTIN,

Plain tiff-Appellan t,

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

v.

No. 22 C 6296

KWAME RAOUL, Attorney General of

Illinois, et al.,

Defendan ts-Appellees.

Sunil R. Harjani,

Judge.

ORDER

After an Illinois state court ordered David Martin to contribute financially to his

son's college expenses, Martin filed this federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking

injunctive and declaratory relief related to his attempts to appeal. He alleged that

* 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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

I

Case: 24-1915

No. 24-1915

Document: 00714637376

Filed: 10/14/2025

Pages: 4

Page 2

several officials involved in the litigation violated his constitutional rights during the

proceedings. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the suit,

relying on abstention principles. Because we agree with the district court that federal

courts should not interfere with the state court's proceedings, we affirm the judgment.

In July 2021, the mother of Martin's child filed a petition in the Circuit Court of

Cook County, Illinois, seeking for Martin to contribute to his son's college expenses.

Judge Gregory Ahern presided over the proceedings via Zoom. According to Martin's

complaint, the clerk's office gave him the incorrect Zoom information and he thus

missed two hearings, leading to a finding of default. At a third hearing in March 2022,

Martin appeared but objected to the court's jurisdiction and refused to participate in the

proceedings any further. Ahern overruled his objection and ordered Martin to split the

costs of his son's college education with his son's mother under the Illinois College

Contribution Statute. See 750ILCS 5/513. Martin moved to certify a bystander's report of

the March hearing, in lieu of a transcript, to support an appeal. See ILL. S. Ct. R. 323(c).

Ahem denied the motion and did not certify the report Martin had offered.

While this litigation was ongoing in state court, Martin sued Attorney General

Kwame Raoul, Judge Ahern, unnamed clerks in the Circuit Court of Cook County, and

Cook County itself for declaratory and injunctive relief, invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He

alleged that Ahern violated his rights by refusing to certify his bystander's report and

the clerks violated his rights by giving him the incorrect Zoom information and keeping

an inaccurate record. He also asserted that the College Contribution Statute is

unconstitutional and sued the attorney general seeking to prohibit its enforcement.

The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that it

should abstain. See J.B. v. Woodard, 997 F.3d 714, 721 (7th Cir. 2021). Because Martin

sought only to influence the proceedings in state court, the district court concluded it

must abstain to honor principles of federalism. In the alternative, the court determined

that Ahern had judicial immunity, the attorney general had sovereign immunity, and

Martin had not effectuated service on the clerks and county—all requiring dismissal.

On appeal, Martin primarily argues that his complaint should proceed because

he seeks only prospective relief. He contends that the judge is not immune to such

claims under Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984), and that he should be able to

obtain a prospective declaration that the College Contribution Act is unconstitutional.

He otherwise contends that he did not serve the clerks at the advice of the court (when a

prior judge was presiding) and to avoid further delay in the proceedings.

(2 of 7)

Case: 24-1915

No. 24-1915

Document: 00714637376

Filed: 10/14/2025

Pages: 4

Page 3

The district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction over Martin's

case. In J.B., we held that principles of equity, comity, and federalism counsel federal

courts to abstain even in cases where no named doctrine is a perfect fit. J.B., 997 F.3d at

722-23. When a plaintiff seeks "to receive a favorable federal constitutional ruling that

can be used affirmatively or offensively to shape—or perhaps change—the direction

and course of the state court proceedings," the federal court must abstain. Id. at 723.

That description fits Martin's claims perfectly. Martin insists his request for a

bystander's report is not a federal collateral challenge to the judgment because he wants

the report only to enable him to appeal that judgment within the state system. But this

is a direct admission that he seeks federal relief solely to shape the course of the state

court's proceedings, a goal we will not facilitate under J.B. Likewise, our adjudicating

whether the clerks gave Martin incorrect Zoom information or altered records could

benefit Martin only by casting doubt on the state court's finding of default. And he

admits his sole reason for suing the attorney general is because he knew he could not

sue his child's mother directly to get the federal courts to dismiss her petition for

College Contribution. Resolving any of these claims would "reflect a lack of respect for

the state's ability to resolve [the issues] properly before its courts." Id. at 724 (alteration

in original) (quoting SKS &Assocs. v. Dart, 619 F.3d 674, 679 (7th Cir. 2010)). Martin's

remedies, if any, for his alleged errors rest exclusively with those state courts.

Martin's attempts to distinguish J.B. from his case are unpersuasive. First, he

asserts that J.B. does not apply because the state trial court's proceedings have

concluded and he again seeks only to appeal within the state system. But the principles

of abstention apply with equal force to state appellate proceedings. See Simpson v.

Rowan, 73 F.3d 134,138 (7th Cir. 1995). Second, he argues that his case is distinguishable

from J.B. because he was unable to participate in the state-court hearings. But Martin's

appearance and participation in (and efforts to object to) the third hearing, as well as his

appeal, demonstrate his ability to seek relief from the default in the state courts, if he

did so consistent with the state courts' procedures.

In short, Martin filed this lawsuit in the federal courts seeking "a favorable

federal court judgment so that he can use that judgment to influence ongoing state court

decision making." J.B., 997 F.3d at 721. But the Illinois state courts are capable of

adjudicating their own cases, including any federal issues that may arise in those cases,

and infringing upon their authority to do so would upset the principles of equity,

comity, and federalism. Accordingly, we refrain from addressing Martin's other

(3 of 7)

Case: 24-1915

No. 24-1915

Document: 00714637376

Filed: 10/14/2025

Pages: 4

Page 4

arguments, see Greening v. Moran, 953 F.2d 301, 304 (7th Cir. 1992), and we affirm the

district court's decision to abstain.

AFFIRMED

(4 of 7)

Case: 24-1915

Document: 00714637377

Filed: 10/14/2025

Pages: 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen

United States Courthouse

Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

CERTIFIED COPY

FINAL JUDGMENT

September 3, 2025

T<

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge

DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge

of

Coui't?<rfZ^p^>eaIs

SeventhYhrcullr

DAVID MARTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant

No. 24-1915

V.

KWAME RAOUL, et al.,

Defendants - Appellees

Originating Case Information:

District Court No: l:22-cv-06296

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

District Judge Sunil R. Harjani

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED, with costs, in accordance with the decision of

this court entered on this date.

Clerk of Court

(5 of 7)

Case: 24-1915

Document: 00714637378

Pages: 1

Filed: 10/14/2025

(6 of 7)

Mniteit JBhttes (Uaurt of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

October 6,2025

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

CERTIFIED COPY

A

THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge

/.(J//

DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge

Co>

No. 24-1915

DAVID MARTIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

v.

No. l:22-cv-06296

KWAME RAOUL, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Sunil R. Harjani,

Judge.

ORDER

Appellant filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on September 16,

2025. No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for

rehearing en banc, and all judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition

for rehearing.

Accordingly, the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED.

FJ

<

Case: 24-1915

Document: 00714637379

Filed: 10/14/2025

Pages: 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen

United States Courthouse

Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE

October 14, 2025

To: Thomas G. Bruton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of Illinois

Chicago, IL 60604

DAVID MARTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant

No. 24-1915

V.

KWAME RAOUL, et al.,

Defendants - Appellees

Originating Case Information:

District Court No: l:22-cv-06296

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

District Judge Sunil R. Harjani

Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the Bill of Costs, if any. A

certified copy of the opinion/order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to

costs shall constitute the mandate.

RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS:

form name: c7_Mandate

(form ID: 135)

No record to be returned

(7 of 7)

App. 3: Order Denying Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Pg-4

Case: 24-1915

Document: 54

Filed: 10/06/2025

Pages: 1

Mnfteh Jifates ©nurt nf Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

October 6, 2025

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge

DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge

No. 24-1915

DAVID MARTIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. l:22-cv-06296

KWAME RAOUL, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Sunil R. Harjani,

Judge.

ORDER

Appellant filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on September 16,

2025. No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for

rehearing en banc, and all judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition

for rehearing.

Accordingly, the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED.

App. 4: Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh

Circuit

Pg-5

Document: 55

Case: 24-1915

Filed: 10/14/2025

Pages: 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen

United States Courthouse

Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE

October 14, 2025

To: Thomas G. Bruton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of Illinois

Chicago, IL 60604

DAVID MARTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant

No. 24-1915

V.

KWAME RAOUL, et al.,

Defendants - Appellees

Originating Case Information:

District Court No: l:22-cv-06296

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

District Judge Sunil R. Harjani

Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the Bill of Costs, if any. A

certified copy of the opinion/order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to

costs shall constitute the mandate.

RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS:

form name: c7_Mandate

(form ID: 135)

No record to be returned

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.