A federal judge has moved quickly to shut down a renewed lawsuit from a judicial reform advocate accusing Illinois' largest judicial lobbying group of wrongly using its collective power to shield member judges from criticism and consequences for alleged unethical actions.
On July 24, U.S. District Judge Robert Blakey moved on the court's own motion to dismiss the amended lawsuit brought by attorney and reform advocate Edward "Coach" Weinhaus with 48 hours of Weinhaus filing it, as Weinhaus sought to resume his legal action against the Illinois Judges Association.
The ruling came with unusual and remarkable speed and was delivered without any motion to dismiss filed by defendants.
Cook County Judge Regina Scannicchio
| https://franoi.com/
In response to the ruling, Weinhaus noted the quickness of the judge's disposal of his lawsuit, saying Blakey "doesn't treat all litigants with such prompt service." He noted that the judge, like others, often allows motions and complaints to linger in court for weeks or months without action.
"I bet a lot of litigants would like this level of service from our courts. To paraphrase my children, it seems the IJA 'lives rent-free in Judge Blakey's dome,'" Weinhaus said in comments to The Record following the ruling.
Weinhaus had filed his first version of the lawsuit in April, accusing the IJA of "complete domination" of the Illinois court system.
In that complaint, Weinhaus asserted the IJA collects dues from judges "then empowers them to write all the rules, join together to rule over the people, protect each other without disclosure, enforce the rules to the detriment of any other group, then both the state and the (IJA) brag about it."
He asserted the IJA's domination of the state's court system leaves people, like him, facing a "Business League" that "as an arm of the state, protects itself, and the individual's right to due process in front of a fair and impartial judiciary is gone."
Weinhaus' legal claims center on actions taken by Illinois appellate justices to allegedly protect Cook County Judge and IJA Board of Directors member Regina Scannicchio for alleged improper actions she took against Weinhaus amid Weinhaus' contentious divorce proceedings with his then-wife.
Scannicchio is also named as a defendant in Weinhaus' action.
Weinhaus asserts Scannicchio improperly sanctioned him in 2020, a ruling that triggered appeals from Weinhaus in which he accused Scannicchio of "ethical lapses." The complaint does not offer specifics about those alleged "ethical lapses."
Weinhaus' appeal, however, was dismissed by a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court, which included justices Michael B. Hyman, Carl A. Walker and Mary Ellen Coghlan.
Weinhaus asserted the denial of the appeal was improper under Illinois Supreme Court rules, and was motivated by a desire to "circle the wagons" to protect Scannicchio, one of "their own," from public scrutiny over her alleged "lapses."
Weinhaus asserted the appellate justices should have recused themselves, or at least disclose their professional relationship to Scannicchio.
Scannicchio has reportedly filed an ethics complaint of her own against Weinhaus with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), which investigates complaints of misconduct against lawyers in Illinois and can recommend to the Illinois Supreme Court to take actions against them.
While the ethics complaint against Weinhaus is not public, Weinhaus has called Scannicchio's complaint politically motivated and baseless.
In his amended complaint, Weinhaus raised new allegations against Scannicchio, accusing the judge of allegedly improperly placing calls and sending messages to other judges in Illinois concerning cases in which Weinhaus was involved and "her opinion of him."
"... Scannicchio began to discuss Plaintiff, the Appeal, and the impact the Appeal would have on her and by extension the Illinois Judges Association if it were to proceed because, it relates to her reputation and conduct while acting under the color of law," Weinhaus wrote in his complaint.
"... Scannicchio and the Illinois Judges Association communicated their displeasure with Plaintiff and the risk he posed to them and the members to the Justices, through no less than Scannicchio's Order and, upon information and belief, through direct contact with the Justices prior to considering the Appeal.
"As a result of Scannicchio's influence, the Illinois Judges Association's influence and the Justices' financial incentives related to their membership in the Illinois Judges Assocation and Scannicchio's Board position therein, Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed sua sponte without any concern for Plaintiff's equal protection of due process rights.
"... Plaintiff's rights were violated by Scannicchio and the IJA because they knowingly and intentionally interfered with his constitutionally protected rights to equal protection and due process to safeguard their own pecuniary interests," Weinhaus wrote in his amended complaint.
When the case first landed in federal court, the initial judge assigned to preside over the case, U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso, recused himself from the case. Alonso is a member of the IJA.
Blakey had dismissed the initial version of Weinhaus' lawsuit in June shortly after the IJA moved to dismiss. That decision had also come swiftly, leaving Weinhaus no time to respond to the IJA.
In their motion to dismiss, the IJA called the lawsuit "a rambling diatribe against the Illinois judicial system, Judge Scannicchio, Illinois judges, Illinois appellate justices and the Illinois Judges Association, that fails to even contain threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action..."
They assert Weinhaus states no actionable claim against the IJA under the law.
They further assert that the lawsuit against the association is barred by the U.S. Constitution's Eleventh Amendment, which shields "the state and 'arms of the state' from being sued in federal court." The IJA said it is not a state agency, but its members are state officials and state employees. So "to the extent (Weinhaus) is attempting to sue the Defendant, Illinois Judges Association, based upon any actions taken by its judicial members in their official capacities (if any) that could imputed (sic) (to the IJA), such claims are barred by the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," the IJA wrote.
In ruling to dismiss the first version of the complaint in June, the judge agreed with the IJA that Weinhaus' case doesn't belong in federal court, because the judge said he believed Weinhaus was asking him to overturn the decisions of state courts, which is barred under the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal legal precedent which prohibits federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.
The judge gave Weinhaus until July 22 to amend his lawsuit to correct the deficiencies identified by the judge.
Weinhaus filed that amended complaint on July 22. But in less than 24 hours, Blakey again threw it out.
In his new order, Blakey said Weinhaus' lawsuit still can't clear the Rooker-Feldman bar.
"...Plaintiff's amended allegations still detail the handling of his domestic relations case, including his appeal and the dismissal thereof and still challenge the impartiality of the judges who dismissed his appealas well as the judge who presided over the underlying matter," Blakey wrote. "As before, the Court remains unable to consider the reasons for the dismissal without re-evaluating the appropriateness of the dismissal, as well as the underlying orders appealed. Plaintiff claims he is not seeking relief against any Judge or Justice involved in his case. Yet he names as Defendants the Judge who presided over his domestic relations case and the Illinois Judges Association (comprised, among other members, of the judges who dismissed his appeal), for "knowingly interfering with his constitutionally protected rights" namely, the right to an impartial appeal. His attempts to draft around Rooker-Feldman do not change the fundamental character of his claims, which necessarily require the Court to delve into the validity, and impugn (if Plaintiff were to win), the state court decisions resolving his domestic relations matter.
"...Awarding Plaintiff monetary damages for the claimed constitutional violation he suffered by having unfavorable orders entered in a state court domestic relations matter effectively reverses those orders," Blakey wrote.
In further response to Blakey's order, Weinhaus noted Alonso's recusal, which he has said previously illustrated the point of his lawsuit.
"I seriously doubt the federal court system believes the IJA can keep paying its judicial members to protect other members," Weinhaus said. "I assume Judge Alonso's IJA-recusal serves as exposure enough to avoid this practice for other litigants."