Wells v. City of Chicago

Full title: WALTER WELLS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO and DANIEL FERNANDEZ…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Date published: Dec 15, 2005

No. 04 C 56 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2005)

Opinion

No. 04 C 56.

December 15, 2005

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES MORAN, Senior District Judge

We earlier dismissed some claims but refused to dismiss one because we could not conclude, solely from the pleadings, that the house was demolished pursuant to a demolition order entered by the state court. Defendant Fernandez now moves for summary judgment and that motion is granted.

The submissions make it abundantly clear that the dispute had a long and tangled history in state court. Ultimately, the state court concluded that plaintiff had not established an ownership interest and that the property should be demolished. Plaintiff contends the state court was wrong about the ownership interest and about the need for demolition. But he did not appeal and theRooker-Feldman doctrine precludes him from overturning that decision in federal court. Fredericksen v. L.A. Demolition, Inc., 54 Fed.App. 858 (8^th Cir. 2002); Talano v. City of Lockport, 6 Fed.App. 450 (7^th Cir. 2001).

We thank appointed counsel for his dedicated service.