Hoeller v. Fannie Mae

Filing 19

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 6/9/2011: Before the Court is Plaintiffs motion to reconsider hearing 15 . In that motion, Plaintiff complains that the Court issued a written decision 14 on his then-pending motion fo r leave to proceed in forma pauperis 9 and motion to invoke options for payment of fees 12 without holding a hearing. The motion for reconsideration 15 is denied and the notice of motion date of 6/14/2011 is stricken. No appearances are necessary on that date and the case will not be called. For further explanation, please see below. Notices Mailed by Judge's Staff (tbk, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Robert Dow, Jr.

CASE NUMBER

11 C 1845

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

6/9/2011

Hoeller vs. Fannie Mae

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider hearing [15]. In that motion, Plaintiff complains that the
Court issued a written decision [14] on his then-pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [9] and
motion to invoke options for payment of fees [12] without holding a hearing. The motion for reconsideration
[15] is denied and the notice of motion date of 6/14/2011 is stricken. No appearances are necessary on that date
and the case will not be called. For further explanation, please see below.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff has requested that the Court allow him to proceed in forma pauperis – that is, without the
prepayment of the $350 filing fee for a civil action. In the Court’s initial order [6], the Court pointed out an
ambiguity in Plaintiff’s financial affidavit that rendered it impossible for the Court to determine whether
Plaintiff qualified for IFP status. The Court explained the ambiguity in the minute order and gave Plaintiff
time to submit a renewed motion along with additional information.
On May 26, 2011, Plaintiff appeared in court. In response to the Court’s inquiries, Plaintiff provided
additional explanation of the representations made on his financial affidavit. As explained in the Court’s
June 6 order [14], Plaintiff’s clarification of his financial circumstances enabled the Court to determine that
Plaintiff qualifies for IFP status.
However, between the time of the May 26 hearing and the June 6 order, Plaintiff had filed another motion
[12] seeking to invoke options for payment of fees. The motion states that “an order was entered to deny in
forma pauperis filing by the Plaintiff, Mr. Hoeller, Pro-Se on May 26, 2011,” which indicates that Plaintiff
misunderstood the Court’s statements at the May 26 hearing. The Court did not deny the IFP motion;
instead, as the docket entry [11] reflects, the motion was taken under advisement. Since then, as noted
above, the IFP motion has been granted [14], thus rendering Plaintiff’s motion to invoke options for payment
of fees [12] moot. Because the Court has granted Plaintiff all of the relief that he possibly could request in
regard to the payment of filing fees – in fact, Plaintiff need not pay a filing fee at all – there was no cause for
hearing on Plaintiff’s alternative motion to invoke options for payment of fees and the hearing date of
6/7/2011 was stricken. There certainly was no due process right to a hearing on a motion that was granted
and a second motion that was moot as a consequence of the court’s action on the first motion.
As the Court’s June 6 order further explained, even with the issue of the filing fee set to the side, there was
11C1845 Hoeller vs. Fannie Mae

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
the remaining question of whether Plaintiff’s initial complaint could survive the threshold review that
Congress has directed the Court to conduct under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). For the reasons explained in
the June 6 order, Plaintiff’s existing complaint is deficient under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court will
not repeat that analysis, except to say that the only consequence at this time is that Plaintiff must submit an
amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies within the time period allotted in the June 6 order.
It appears from Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration that he intended to raise at the June 7 motion hearing
several matters in addition to the “options for payment of fees” set forth on the face of the motion – including
“methods of review of the case which is classified as a civil rights complaint, and follow-up action in the
service of a summons.” Those are matters that can be taken up with the Court in due course at a future status
hearing. Similarly, any request by Plaintiff for a live hearing at which he will present evidence must await a
determination that Plaintiff has on file a complaint that provides notice to Defendant of a plausible claim for
relief and the basis upon which that claim rests. If Plaintiff’s amended complaint is deemed satisfactory after
the Court undertakes its Section 1915 review, the Court not only will allow Plaintiff to proceed without the
prepayment of the filing fee, but also will appoint the United States Marshals Service to serve the summons
and complaint on Defendant. For the time being, any discussion of the issues raised in the motion for
reconsideration would be premature. All that Plaintiff need do at present is comply with the Court’s
directions in the June 6 order concerning the filing of a proposed amended complaint. Again, Plaintiff is
reminded that the Court’s Pro Se Help Desk may be available to assist Plaintiff with understanding the
Court’s rules and procedures and the form that documents should take when filed with the Court.

11C1845 Hoeller vs. Fannie Mae

Page 2 of 2