Walker - David et al v. Grifolis et al

Filing 8

ORDER-WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard on 2/2/2017: For the reasons stated below, this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plainti ff's motion for attorney representation 4 is denied and her application to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is denied as moot. [see STATEMENT-OPINION] Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard on 2/2/2017. Mailed notice (kms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION
Kateri Aaliyah Mallissa Walker David, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Grifolis, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16 C 50369

Judge Philip G. Reinhard

ORDER
For the reasons stated below, this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s motion
for attorney representation [4] is denied and her application to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is
denied as moot.
STATEMENT-OPINION
Plaintiff, Kateri Aaliyah Mallissa Walker David (a/k/a Mallissa McPherson), pro se,
brings this action against 21 defendants. She also names 20 individuals other than herself as
plaintiffs. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis [3] and a motion for
attorney representation [4].
Plaintiff used a fill in the blank complaint form1, which she obtained from the collection
of forms available to litigants in this court’s clerk’s office, to submit her complaint. The form
she chose to use is the form designated for use by prisoners to submit their civil rights claims.
Plaintiff is not a prisoner so her decision to use this form was not particularly helpful. The
caption of the case lists as plaintiffs: Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Academy, Prince Henry
Charles Albert David, Kateri Aaliyah Mallissa Walker David, St. Mary Oratory, Lula
McPherson, Wardell Roseman Shaylon Walker, Robert Walker, Rockford First, Kemori Walker,
Kaleb Walker, Kayla Walker, “collectively referred to as Pope Francis of Assisi United St.
Kateri of UK Baptist Church Trust.” She also lists Rockford Public Schools, Tracey Walker,
Marissa McPherson, Wardell Roseman Jr., Tiawan Walker, Camari Walker, Keyondre Walker,
Rosecrance and George Duo. These individuals and entities appear to be listed as plaintiffs (and
the docket sheet reflects this) but it may be that they were intended to be listed as defendants. In

1

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_online/1983EDForm092007.pdf
1

the portion of the body of the complaint form provided for identifying the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s
name is listed as Pope Francis of Assisi United Trustee with an alias of “Mallissa McPherson
listed.” On the complaint’s signature lines plaintiff has written “Princess Diana” and “Kateri
Walker David”.
Because plaintiff chose to use the form designed for prisoners, the form required a list of
all lawsuits filed by the plaintiff in any state or federal court. On the line of the form for the
name of the case and docket number she has written a number but crossed it off. The
approximate date of the filing of that lawsuit is listed as “2010 to Current.” The plaintiff in that
case is listed as “Saint Kateri of UK Baptist Church Trustee.” The case is listed as pending in
the “17th District of Winnebago County” and the judge assigned to the case is listed as “Phillip
G. Reinhard.” The claim in that case is stated to be: “violation of civil procedures and habeas
corpus act, civil rights act of 1964, conspiracy to commit murder, violation of federal
procedures.” The case is said to be “pending” and lists an approximate date of disposition as “52015.”
Plaintiff’s statement of her claim in its entirety is filled-in as follows: “On or about 9-1101 I was struck by a vehicle on Shady Oaks and Rte 58 in Elgin Il to no reply. On or about 9-1115 I filed a federal lawsuit naming defendants et al. On or about 12-25-2016 this case was
settled.”
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It is
impossible to discern how any of the defendants might be liable to plaintiff for anything based
on these statements. This case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.2
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. “If a plaintiff makes a
reasonable attempt to secure counsel, the court must examine whether the difficulty of the case factually or legally - exceeds the particular plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently
present it.” Childress v. Walker, 787 F.3d 433, 443 (7th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). Plaintiff has not met the threshold burden. Her motion indicates she did not contact
any attorneys about representing her. She states she contacted only the “United States District
Court Clerk” seeking representation.

2

Plaintiff filed two additional documents [6] and [7]. Document [6] appears to be a
separate complaint against J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. It states: “Now comes forth plaintiff
with questions pertaining to Federal [illegible] Banking practices in regards to an account
belonging to Mallissa Rosemon McPherson . . . ordered by the Kane County, Illinois clerk to be
dispersed as a certificate of deposit in May 2003.” It is not possible to discern from this
statement what the alleged claim is or why this court would have subject matter jurisdiction.
Document [7] is apparently offered as an affidavit by plaintiff in support of her
complaint. It is a mishmash of statements concerning various entities and events. None of these
statements relates to the subject of her complaint set forth in the statement of claim above.
2

Plaintiff has filed numerous actions in this court or which have been removed to this
court. Case No. 16cv50375 is also being dismissed by the court today. All of the other cases
plaintiff had in this court have been dismissed. Those cases are 14cv50186, 16cv3256,
14cv50093, 16cv50010, 11cv50138, and 11cv50149. The court views this case as frivolous and
plaintiff is warned that future filings of this type may result in sanctions against the plaintiff.
For the foregoing reasons, this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s motion
for attorney representation [4] is denied and her application to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is
denied as moot.
Date: 2/02/2017

ENTER:

_____________________________________
United States District Court Judge

Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (LC)

3