Brownlow et al v. Fannie Mae, Judicial Sales Corp et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM Order. Accordingly this memorandum order simply dismisses the Complaint, while this Court grants Brownlows until January 22, 2015 to file an appropriate Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs emergency motion for injunctive relief is denied as moot. Hearing on motion set for 12/2/14 is vacated. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/1/2014. Mailed notice(tlp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MELVIN BROWNLOW, ALENE
BROWNLOW,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FANNIE MAE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14 C 9390

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs, whether in or out of the mainstream. And
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) teaches that pro se pleadings are to be viewed through a
more generous lens than those prepared by a trained lawyer.
But those generic principles do not spare from dismissal -- either from a determination of
frivolousness, whether factual (see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992)) or legal (see
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989)), or from a failure to satisfy the Twombly-Iqbal
requirement of plausibility -- a complaint such as the one tendered in this action by pro se
plaintiffs Melvin and Alene Brownlow (collectively "Brownlows"). With Brownlows having
described themselves as "Special and Private Non-Statutory Citizens of the Illinois Territory,"
and with Melvin Brownlow having noticed up for presentment on December 2 what he has
labeled as an "Exparte Bill in Demand in Special Assumpsit for Emergency Injunctive Relief" in
support of Brownlows' "Petition for Declaratory Relief," each of those documents and their
appendages set out a gobbledygook narrative that may have a meaning intelligible to those who

share the "sovereign citizen" views obviously held by Brownlows but that are not cognizable as a
rational basis for federal judicial action.
That then plainly calls for the dismissal of Brownlows' self-prepared Complaint. But
because they have paid the $400 filing fee contemporaneously with their filing of that
Complaint, it would be unfair to dispatch the action itself without giving them an opportunity to
advance a plausible and federally cognizable claim. Accordingly this memorandum order simply
dismisses the Complaint, while this Court grants Brownlows until January 22, 2015 to file an
appropriate Amended Complaint. If they were to fail to do so, this Court would be constrained
to dismiss the action itself because of Brownlows' failure to have asserted a colorable claim
coming within federal subject matter jurisdiction.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: December 1, 2014

-2-