Opinion
Case No. 02 C 5996
October 2, 2002
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The reasons for the recommended denial of the subject motion are as follows:
The Court finds that no evidentiary hearing is necessary on the motion. See e.g., Ty, Inc. v. The Jones Group, 98 F. Supp. 988, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2001); Promatek Industries, Ltd. v. Equitrac Corp. 300 F.3d 808, 814 (7th Cir. 8/13/02).
1) For the bases set forth in the objections of Defendant Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission ("ARDC"), which, essentially, are that:
A) The federal courts should and must "Abstain" from requested actions in this proceeding that would necessarily interfere with ongoing state disciplinary proceedings. e.g., Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Association, 457 U.S. 423 (1982);
B) The Rooker-Feldman applies to Plaintiff's collateral attacks herein on the orders of the Illinois Supreme Court, see, e.g., Manley v. City of Chicago, 236 F.2d 392, 395-398 (7th Cir. 2001);
C) Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief to the extent he is seeking to obtain employment with the ARDC, see, e.g., Long v. Chicago Transit Authority, 979 F. Supp. 1214, 1216 (N.D. Ill 1997), citing Tregenza v. Great Am. Communications Co., 12 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 1993);
D) Plaintiff is not entitled to any order compelling investigations by the ARDC, see, e.g. Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Association, 998 F.2d 1559 (10th Cir. 1993); Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2001).
2) Upon review, the court perceives no real likelihood of success on the merits as to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction;
3) Plaintiff cannot establish irreparable harm as to certain of his preliminary injunction issues. See, e.g., Shegog v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 194 F.3d 836, 839 (7th Cir. 1999), citing Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 89-92 (1974); EEOC v. Janesville, 630 F.2d 1254, 1259 (7th Cir. 1980); citing Sampson, 415 U.S. at 61.
4) Mandatory preliminary injunctive relief, as sought here, is rarely issued and is never issued "except upon the clearest equitable grounds." Graham v. Medical Mutual of Ohio, 130 F.2d 293, 295 (7th Cir. 1995). The court determines, respectfully, that no such clear showing for equitable relief has been made by the Plaintiff herein.
It perhaps bears noting that the Defendant(s) has indicated that a motion(s) to dismiss in the cause will be filed on or prior to October 21, 2002.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (and mandatory injunctive relief) be denied.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(B); 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(B); LORENTZEN v. ANDERSON PEST CONTROL, 64 F.3d 327, 329 (7TH CIR. 1995); THE PROVIDENT BANK v. MANOR STEEL CORP., 882 F.2d 258 (7TH CIR. 1989).