Denied, Corrected, Certified: The Record From August 18 to October 4

The sanctions motion, start to finish

Seven entries, eighteen days. The State asked for sanctions; the court refused them and, in the same two sentences, told the appellant what the next violation would cost. Both halves are on the record, and this page reports both.

Appellant’s motion to modify this court’s order of July 31, 2026, is granted, as this court’s intent in entering that order was to prohibit communication only with appellee’s appellate counsel. Appellant’s motion to stay is denied. If this order indeed moots this appeal, appellant may move to dismiss it.

Order, People v. Allababidi, No. 2-26-0352 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Aug. 21, 2026)

Appellee’s motion for sanctions is denied without prejudice. Appellant is hereby advised that any future violation of this court’s orders will result in the dismissal of this appeal.

Order, People v. Allababidi, No. 2-26-0352 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Sept. 4, 2026) — entire operative text

What the September 4 order says, and what it does not

It denies the motion. “Without prejudice” leaves the State free to renew it. The order contains no written finding that the August 23 e-mail violated anything; its two operative sentences are the denial and an advisory about the future. The advisory is categorical — a future violation “will result in the dismissal of this appeal” — and it binds whatever the appellant does next.

Since August 21 the communication bar reaches one office: appellee’s appellate counsel, the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor. Contact with the prosecutors litigating the circuit-court case is outside it, a scope the State itself did not oppose on August 19. The separate July 31 sentence — “appellant himself shall file nothing further with this court” — was not addressed by the August 21 order and stands.

Door 01 opened on September 17

The case timeline organised the August record around six doors. The first read: relief requires a record, and the record was not filed. On September 17, 2026 the Clerk of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit certified it under Supreme Court Rule 324. Counsel’s August 10 e-mail had said the office would “order the record to be prepared.” The record arrived thirty-eight days later.

The record has been prepared and certified in the form required for transmission to the reviewing court. It consists of: 1 Volume(s) of the Common Law Record, containing 411 pages; 1 Volume(s) of the Report of Proceedings, containing 175 pages; 0 Volume(s) of the Exhibits, containing 0 pages.

Certification of Record, No. 2-26-0352 — Erin Cartwright Weinstein, Clerk of the 19th Judicial Circuit Court, Sept. 17, 2026; e-filed 3:24 p.m.

A separately certified impounded volume adds four pages. The certified index places the entries that matter here — including the June 17 hearing the appeal is taken from and the August 6 hearing:

The August narrative was right that no transcript had been settled by August 13. It is no longer right that none exists: the transcripts of June 17 and August 6 are now part of the certified record on appeal.

One question, answered the same day

On September 1 the court in Allababidi v. Shepherd, N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-06738, dismissed the action with prejudice and entered judgment (Dkt. 21, 22). The next day the plaintiff filed a 34-page motion under Rule 59(e) built around one question:

Assuming every substantive conclusion in the Order is correct, which doctrine identified in the Order permits dismissal of this action with prejudice?

Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, Dkt. 23, filed Sept. 2, 2026 — Question Presented

Mr. Allababidi is partially correct. The dismissal of certain claims based on Younger abstention and/or the rule of Heck v. Humphrey should have been without prejudice and not with prejudice. Mr. Allababidi also correctly points out that the judgment form (the AO 450 form) does not correctly list the defendants. Finally there is a technical defect in the Court’s order; it should have granted leave to amend before entering a judgment. The Court overrules Mr. Allababidi’s remaining arguments in his motion to vacate.

Minute entry, Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly, Dkt. 24, entered Sept. 2, 2026

The corrected ruling grants leave to amend, then dismisses the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). It also says, in terms this page will not soften: “It is clear at this point that he cannot assert a viable claim over which the Court has jurisdiction.” The amended judgment (Dkt. 25) reads:

The judgment now names the defendants the amended complaint actually sued: Nicholas Shepherd, Francis DeRosa IV, Marisa Cervantes, Lori Carrier, Margaret Fontana, Erin Weinstein, Hanna Becerra and Lake County. Destiny Lee and Cook County were terminated because the amended complaint did not include them. A dismissal without prejudice is not a merits ruling; a claim barred by Younger or Heck can be brought again once the bar no longer applies.

On September 7 the plaintiff filed a second motion under Rule 59(e), addressed to the amended judgment, tendering a proposed Second Verified Amended Complaint with twenty-eight exhibits (Dkt. 26; exhibits at Dkt. 26-1, 135 pages). No ruling on Dkt. 26 appears in the records reviewed for this update.

The Supreme Court: response waived, conference held

Allababidi v. Illinois, No. 26-5055, seeks review of the Second District’s November 17, 2025 decision in No. 2-25-0440. Every entry on the Court’s own docket, as read on October 4, 2026:

The docket lists the case as docketed July 10, 2026. It shows no entry after August 17 as of October 4. Whatever the Court did at the September 28 conference will appear on its order list and on the official docket; this page will be updated from that docket, not from expectation. The case page carries the full entry list.

The First District: refused at intake in August, briefed by November

In August the First District’s intake queue refused a submission in No. 1-26-0055 — People v. Allababidi, an appeal from Cook County and a separate prosecution from Lake County 23 CF 1146 — and the court corrected the refusal within ten days. On October 2 the Clerk of the Appellate Court wrote that “the electronic record on appeal in the above referenced case has been filed,” and the court ordered briefing:

Source: record filed acknowledgment, Tina M. Schillaci, Clerk of the Appellate Court, First District, Oct. 2, 2026 (cited; not republished because it carries a home address).

Who owns warrant 314270? A mandamus petition asks the State Police

On September 21 the appellant filed a verified complaint in Sangamon County against Brendan F. Kelly, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police: Allababidi v. Kelly, No. 2026 MR 000348. Its caption states the dispute in one line — “Warrant 314270 / State Warrant W26F4152 – LEADS record-quality and responsible-ORI dispute.” Its first paragraph states what it does not ask for:

Plaintiff does not ask this Court to quash a criminal warrant, decide the pending criminal appeal, or order public disclosure of restricted LEADS or NCIC content. He asks the State official responsible for Illinois State Police administration to comply prospectively with the rules governing LEADS accuracy, quality control, correction routing, and preservation.

Verified Complaint ¶ 1, Allababidi v. Kelly, No. 2026 MR 000348 (Sangamon County, e-filed Sept. 21, 2026) — a party pleading

The complaint alleges that the Sheriff’s July 15 Warrant Details print lists the Lake County Sheriff’s Office as the agency (IL0490000) and separately lists “Warrant Issuing Agency: IL0492900: Lincolnshire Police Department,” while Lincolnshire’s records office wrote that the May and June events “were not our warrants.” The complaint itself says those facts “may ultimately be reconcilable.” What it seeks is the field-level reconciliation nobody has supplied — the same question the Lincolnshire ORI page and the ISP FOIA denial have carried since August.

Sources: clerk’s docket printout dated Sept. 24, 2026; summons e-filed 9/21/2026 (Joseph B. Roesch, Clerk); sent-mail metadata for the Oct. 2 transmission. Sent is not served.

Park Ridge, in two courtrooms

Federal court, No. 1:25-cv-15786 (Judge Georgia N. Alexakis). On August 19 the court denied a temporary restraining order and dismissed the first amended complaint without prejudice (Dkt. 47–48). The second amended complaint followed on August 24. On September 3 the court dismissed it on its own motion under Rule 8 — calling it “nearly 50 pages of dense, single-spaced type—much of it legal argument” — and set a limit:

The Court is firmly convinced that these claims can be set out, with the requisite level of factual detail, in no more than 20 pages.

Order, Dkt. 51, Sept. 3, 2026

The Third Verified Amended Complaint was filed the next day: nineteen pages (Dkt. 52, with an exhibit appendix at Dkt. 52-1). On September 18 the City moved to dismiss it with prejudice (Dkt. 53). Dkt. 50 and Dkt. 51 are published whole.

Cook County Chancery, No. 2025CH12908 (Judge Neil H. Cohen, Calendar 5). A September 2 order granted leave to file a second amended verified complaint by September 4, held the City’s answer in abeyance until the emergency motion to disqualify Ancel Glink, P.C. is decided, set a September 28 response date, entered and continued a Rule 137 sanctions motion, and set status on the disqualification motion for October 26, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.

The City’s September 25 opposition describes the motion’s theory: that an Ancel Glink attorney “allegedly serves as Village Attorney for the Village of Lincolnshire” and that a sheriff’s record identifies Lincolnshire police as the issuing agency for the warrant. The City’s answer, in its own words:

Plaintiff seeks the extraordinary remedy of disqualifying the City’s chosen counsel based on speculation, attenuated associations, and unanswered questions—not evidence of an actual conflict.

City of Park Ridge, Response in Opposition, No. 2025CH12908, Sept. 25, 2026

The reply was file-stamped September 30 at 12:37 p.m. No ruling on the motion appears in the records reviewed.

Corrections to this site

An archive that overstates once can be dismissed entirely, so the corrections go first and in public.

• “The Court Named the Remedy” said, as of August 20, that no stay motion was on file. Appointed counsel had e-filed one on August 18 at 12:29 p.m.; the court denied it on August 21. The headline and the facts table are corrected, with the original wording described in the correction note.
• The No. 26-5055 supplemental-brief page gave the filing date as August 15. The Court’s docket records the filing on August 17.
• The case timeline attributed the two August 18 motions to “Defendant.” They were filed by appointed counsel on the appellant’s behalf. The timeline also said door 01 was “still shut”; it now records the September 17 certification.
• The homepage archive counters displayed “0” after an earlier rebuild removed the script that filled them. They now carry fixed, sourced numbers.

What would change this page

Every source on this page

Published whole — byte-identical copies, hashed before and after copying (manifest):

Cited and quoted. Where a record carries the appellant’s home address or telephone number, or impounded material, it is quoted here rather than republished:

A SHA-256 digest proves that bytes are identical. It does not prove a document’s truth, authorship, receipt or legal effect.