Hunziker v. German-American State Bank, 87 C 20215.

• Decision Date: 03 October 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87 C 20215.,87 C 20215.
• Parties: Donald E. HUNZIKER and Joan E. Hunziker, Plaintiffs, v. GERMAN-AMERICAN STATE BANK, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

697 F. Supp. 1007

Donald E. HUNZIKER and Joan E. Hunziker, Plaintiffs, v. GERMAN-AMERICAN STATE BANK, et al., Defendants.

No. 87 C 20215.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, W.D.

October 3, 1988.

Donald E. Hunziker, Freeport, Ill., in pro. per.

Joan Hunziker, Freeport, Ill., in pro. per.

Richard R. Haldeman, Michael K. Havrilesko, Williams & McCarthy, Rockford, Ill., for Peter McClanathan, Schmelzle & Kroeger Law Offices, and W.L. Kroeger.

Michael F. O'Brien, Clark, McGreevy & Johnson, Rockford, Ill., for German-American Bank, James Schneiderman, Jeff Sibley, James Butler, Glenn Borneman, Bill (Guy) Lomax, Ted Long, Vail Nortridge, and Marsden Wilhelms.

John A. Ward, Atty. Gen. of Ill., Chicago, Ill., for Francis X. Mahoney.

Stephen E. Ford, Mark S. Vilimek, Jo M. Bonell, Patti Deuel, Kiesler & Berman, Chicago, Ill., for Oefelein, Rundall, Clark, and Roberts.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NORDBERG, District Judge.

The case before this federal Court arises from plaintiffs' dissatisfaction with the Illinois law governing the ex parte issuance of writs of replevin and the manner in which a state court applied this law to plaintiffs' farm property. The pro se plaintiffs, a couple from Stephenson County, Illinois, have sued the state Circuit Judge who issued the writ; the sheriff and deputies who executed it; the bank that sought its issuance and several of its officers, directors and employees; and the bank's lawyers. The defendant judge has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and the remaining defendants have filed motions for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b). Plaintiffs have filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, consideration of which the Court postponed pending decision on defendants' motions. For the reasons detailed in the following opinion, the Court grants all of the defendants' motions and consequently denies plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment.

Introduction

The Court's decision is best understood in light of the full procedural history of this case. Plaintiffs Donald and Joan Hunziker were hog farmers residing in Stephenson County, Illinois. The German-American State Bank, an Illinois-chartered institution located in German Valley, Illinois, lent them money to operate their farm. Contending that it held a perfected security interest in much of plaintiffs' property, that plaintiffs had defaulted on their obligations in the amount of approximately $290,000, and that plaintiffs were likely to conceal or otherwise dispose of the secured property, the bank persuaded Judge Francis X. Mahoney of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit to issue a writ of replevin ex parte on April 10, 1985. The hearing was conducted without notice to plaintiffs pursuant to § 19-106 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, ¶ 19-106 (1984). The court ordered the bank to post bond in the amount of $380,000, or approximately twice the estimated value of the assets covered by the security agreement, and scheduled an adversarial hearing for April 15.

On April 11, Stephenson County Sheriff Glenn Oefelein and three deputies served the writ of replevin on the Hunzikers. Subject to the writ were much of the Hunzikers' livestock, grain and feed, and farm equipment. On the day scheduled for the adversarial hearing before the state court, the Hunzikers filed a petition for removal with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, in Rockford. The District Court denied the petition for failure to raise any federal question and had a copy of the order hand-delivered to the state court on the same day. The Hunzikers appeared pro se at the scheduled hearing in the state court and requested a continuance to obtain counsel. Judge Mahoney granted the continuance and entered further orders permitting the bank to sell the Hunzikers' livestock, due to its perishable nature, and denying the bank permission to sell the replevied grain.

A protracted series of negotiations, hearings, motions and more negotiations ensued, during the course of which the Hunzikers' counsel was granted leave to withdraw. At some point, the Hunzikers, once again acting pro se, apparently reached an agreement with the bank to settle the case and filed a proposed settlement with the court on October 22. Nevertheless, the very next day the Hunzikers filed a motion objecting to judgment on the settlement they had proposed, contending that it violated several of their constitutional rights. That day, after questioning the Hunzikers about the proposed agreement in open court and determining that they had since reconsidered their objections, Judge Mahoney agreed to accept the proposed agreement as judgment in the case and set November 8, 1985, for entry of the final judgment order. On November 8, following further discussion in open court, Judge Mahoney entered judgment pursuant to the agreed terms. The essence of the consent judgment was that the bank would release the Hunzikers from personal liability for any deficiencies remaining on their outstanding debt after the sale of the replevied property; for their part, the Hunzikers agreed to the validity of the replevin and sale of their property and to release the bank from any further claims that they might assert against it as a result of the controversy.

To most minds, this judicially accepted compromise by the parties would have appeared to resolve the dispute once and for all. Instead, the Hunzikers shortly afterward began filing a series of motions pro se with the state court seeking to overturn the consent judgment.¹ Judge Mahoney denied these motions in a hearing on January 14, 1986, and the Hunzikers appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, which affirmed in an unpublished order and opinion issued May 7, 1987. German-American State Bank v. Hunziker, No. X-XX-XXXX (Ill.App. 2d Dist. May 7, 1987) 154 Ill.App.3d 1161, 116 Ill.Dec. 661, 519 N.E.2d 729 (table)² The Illinois Supreme Court apparently denied the Hunzikers leave to appeal,³ and the Supreme Court of the United States denied their petition for writ of certiorari. Hunziker v. German-American State Bank, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 1479, 99 L.Ed.2d 707 (1988).

Before the Appellate Court had an opportunity to render its decision, however, the Hunzikers on April 10, 1987, filed suit pro se in this Court, alleging wholesale violations of their rights under the federal Constitution, federal statutes, and state common law.⁴ They subsequently amended their complaint on April 21 to allege additional state statutory claims.⁵ Named as defendants were Judge Mahoney; Sheriff Oefelein and three of his deputies; the German-American State Bank and various of its directors, officers and employees; and the lawyers who represented the bank in the replevin proceedings. Purporting to rely on 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201; Fed.R.Civ.P. 60; and "Ancillary, Pendent Claim and Pendent Party Jurisdiction" over state causes of action, the Hunzikers sought $5 million in damages apiece and a declaration that the state court judgment in the replevin action is void.

Upon full briefing by the parties and for the reasons detailed below, the Court now grants defendant Mahoney's motion to dismiss with prejudice and the remaining defendants' motions for summary judgment, and denies plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs' Request to Void State Court Judgment

In asking this Court to declare the state court judgment void,⁶ plaintiffs betray a fundamental confusion about the powers of federal trial courts. Their plea in this regard amounts to a demand for the Court to sit in appellate review of the state courts that have passed on the matter previously. Such review, of course, is clearly beyond the power of this Court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1314, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). See also Andersen v. Roszkowski, 681 F.Supp. 1284, 1292 (N.D.Ill.1988). Plaintiffs' sole federal remedy in such cases is to seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1257. Since the Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs' case, federal appellate review is at an end. The Court now turns to their claims for money damages.

Plaintiffs' Claims for Damages

Plaintiffs have asserted claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986, as well as assertedly ancillary or pendent state common law and statutory claims. They also have requested an award of attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. As a preliminary matter, the Court observes that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and, derivatively, § 1986.⁷

The Supreme Court has held that a cause of action under § 1985(3) requires at a minimum that plaintiff prove the deprivation of rights as a result of a conspiracy with "some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators' action." Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971). In a subsequent decision, the Court strongly indicated that § 1985(3) was directed only at racially motivated conspiracies, but left open the question whether it might apply to other class-based discrimination. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 836-37, 103 S.Ct. 3352, 3360, 77 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1983). The Court did hold, however, that § 1985(3) did not reach economically or commercially motivated conspiracies, rejecting its use for recovery in the context of a management-labor dispute. Id. at 838-39, 103 S.Ct. at 3361. The remaining issues as to the statute's reach were left to the lower courts.

Until but a few months ago, this Court would have been inclined to dismiss plaintiffs' §§ 1985 and 1986 claims simply on the grounds that they failed to allege a racial conspiracy. In construing Griffin and Scott, the Seventh Circuit...