A consumer sued several Illinois judges for violating his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed his claims as frivolous and warned that further appeals could lead to sanctions.
04/26/2024 10:50 A.M.
2 minute read
In a recent ruling in Illinois, a plaintiff and serial litigant named Michael Henry saw his appeal dismissed by the court on the grounds of frivolity and failure to adhere to legal standards. Henry had sued several Illinois circuit and appellate judges in the 7th Circuit, as well as the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, alleging that their actions in an ongoing state court proceeding against him violated his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. However, the district court promptly dismissed his claims, deeming them frivolous.
Background
In 2020, the Village of Orland Park sued Henry in Illinois state court, alleging that he made automated phone calls that created a nuisance and violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. See 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5)(A).
In 2022, Henry sued several judges throughout Illinois, “alleging that they tolerated widespread corruption in the state judiciary and refused to apply Supreme Court precedent in his case.”
He also alleged that one circuit judge solicited a bribe from him in exchange for a favorable ruling on his motion to dismiss the state suit, among other claims. Henry argued generally that these actions violated his constitutional right to due process, and he sought damages and the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate judicial corruption.
Despite his claims, the district court dismissed Henry’s case, citing several legal justifications. First, it invoked the principle of abstention under Younger v. Harris, determining that interference with the ongoing state proceeding was inappropriate. Additionally, the judges were entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in their judicial capacities, shielding them from claims for damages. Lastly, Henry’s request for injunctive relief was barred by Section 1983, which states “that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”
On appeal, Henry failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, presenting a brief consisting “mostly of unsubstantiated accusations levied at the defendants in this suit, his adversaries in the underlying litigation (who are not parties to his federal lawsuit), and various political figures.” Notably, the court warned Henry against further frivolous litigation, referencing a prior case where similar behavior was admonished, Anderson v. Hardman.
ACA’s Take
The court’s decision sends a clear message about the consequences of filing baseless lawsuits and appeals. Frivolous litigation not only clogs the judicial system but also wastes resources and time for all parties involved. By dismissing Henry’s appeal and warning about potential sanctions, the court emphasized the importance of upholding legal standards and discouraging meritless claims.
Remember, subscribe to ACA Daily and Member Alerts under your My ACA profile when logged in to acainternational.org.