Talley v. Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM Order: Plaintiff Talley's Motion to the Court 15 is denied and his Response to the Seventh Circuit Clerk's statement 16 is rejected. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/1/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

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

DURWYN TALLEY (#B-52081),

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CLERK OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, )
7TH CIRCUIT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 15 C 5323

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This most recent lawsuit by frequent filer Durwyn Talley ("Talley") continues a litigation
track record that has shown him to occupy an imagined universe in which every adverse reaction
or ruling that he receives stems from an ever-widening circle of persons engaged in a conspiracy
to defeat his rights. Most recently the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
has, at this Court's request, filed a response to this latest lawsuit -- one targeting that Clerk amid
a host of other defendants -- only to be met with two further hand-printed documents authored by
Talley and received in this District Court's Clerk's Office on August 21: a "Motion to the Court"
and a "Response to the Statement of the Clerk of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."
At the risk of its being added to Talley's list of alleged co-conspirators, this Court finds
nothing in his latest submissions that provides credible support to his claims of a global
conspiracy that this Court had dismissed on preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 1

1

All further references to Title 28's provisions will simply take the form "Section --,"
omitting the prefatory "28 U.S.C. §."

in a June 19 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion I"). In addition to identifying the
respects in which Talley needed to provide additional information to enable this Court to make
the calculations required under Section 1915, in substantive terms Opinion I held "that Talley's
claims are clearly frivolous, both legally and factually, as those concepts are explained in the
seminal opinions in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (see also, e.g., Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 829 (7th Cir. 2007) and
cases cited there)."
It is unnecessary to recount the later developments in which this Court responded to
Talley's reiteration of his conspiracy claims by inviting input from the United States Attorney's
Office to explain the conduct about which Talley had complained. Suffice it to say that the
requested input has reconfirmed this Court's original diagnosis of legal and factual frivolousness
and that Talley's most recent submissions have not altered that conclusion.
In summary, Talley's most recent Motion (Dkt. No. 15) is denied and his Response to the
Seventh Circuit Clerk's statement (Dkt. No. 16) is rejected. That being so, this Court's
determination in Opinion I that Talley has now "struck out" under Section 1915(g) is
reconfirmed.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: September 1, 2015

-2-