United States of America v. Real Property Located at 20 Kassing Drive, Fairview Heights, St. Clair County, Illinois

Filing 27

ORDER STRIKING 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Lennil L Johnson, granting 18 MOTION to Strike filed by Thomas A Lechien, striking and alternatively denying 22 MOTION to Set Aside Default filed by Lennil L Johnson, striking and alternatively denying 23 MOTION for Judicial Intervention filed by Lennil L Johnson, and denying 24 MOTION to Copy filed by Lennil L Johnson. Show Cause Response due by 3/10/2014. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 2/10/2014. (mtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
20 KASSING DRIVE, FAIRVIEW
HEIGHTS, ST. CLAIR COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, AND ALL ATTACHMENTS,
IMPROVEMENTS, AND
APPURTENANCES THERETO,
Defendant.
HERNDON, Chief Judge:

No. 13-cv-298-DRH-SCW
MEMORANDUN & ORDER
I. Introduction

Before the Court is claimant Thomas A. LeChien’s motion to strike or deny
Lennil L. Johnson’s “motion/petition verified claim and answer motion/ petition to
set aside default judgments/sanctions extraordinary circumstances, bad faith,
harassment, flagrant unconstitutionality, or unusual circumstances warranting
equitable relief” (Doc. 18). For the reasons stated below, the motion to strike is
GRANTED. Johnson’s claim is frivolous (Doc. 14).

Johnson’s “motion/ petition

verified claim and answer,” which the Court construes as a motion to dismiss the
complaint (Doc. 16), is STRICKEN. Johnson’s remaining motions (Docs. 22 and
23) are STRICKEN and alternatively DENIED with prejudice.

Johnson is

DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE by March 10, 2014, as to why this Court should
Page 1 of 7

not enter sanctions against him.
II. Law and Application
On March 22, 2013, the United States filed a complaint for forfeiture of the
Real Property Located at 20 Kassing Drive, Fairview Heights, St. Clair County,
Illinois (Real Property) (Doc. 2).
Direct notice of the forfeiture action was mailed to claimant Thomas
LeChien (LeChien) on May 22, 2013 (Doc. 6).

LeChien timely answered the

complaint and filed his statement of claim on June 19, 2013 (Docs. 7 and 8).
Notice of the forfeiture action was published in the Legal Reporter for three
consecutive weeks commencing on August 14, 2013 and ending on August 28,
2013. Notice was also published on www.forfeiture.gov for 30 consecutive days
beginning on August 15, 2013, as required by Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the
Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture
Actions. The publication notice stated that any person asserting an interest in the
Real Property must file the claim no later than September 27, 2013 (Docs. 13 and
15).
On December 16, 2013, Johnson filed his “claim” to the Real Property,
asserting himself as the lawful owner of the Real Property (Doc. 14). Thereafter,
on January 8, 2014, Johnson filed a motion titled, “motion/petition verified claim
and answer motion/petition to set aside default judgments/sanctions extraordinary
circumstances, bad faith, harassment, flagrant unconstitutionality, or unusual
Page 2 of 7

circumstances warranting equitable relief,” which the Court construes as a motion
to dismiss the United States’ complaint for forfeiture (Doc. 16). Claimant LeChien
moves to strike or deny with prejudice Johnson’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 18).
The United States responds to LeChien’s motion to strike and also asks that this
Court strike Johnson’s purported claim, deny his motion to dismiss, and enter
default judgment and sanctions against him (Doc. 20).

Johnson additionally

moves “to petition set aside default/sanctions” (Doc. 22) and “for immediate
federal judicial intervention” (Doc. 23). 1
First, the Court must note that many of Johnson’s assertions to the Court
are illegible.

However, the gist of his “claim” is this: Deborah Perkins (whose

criminal conduct lead to this forfeiture action, see United States v. Deborah
Perkins, 13-cr-30024-DRH), executed a quitclaim deed to the Real Property to
Johnson on August 22, 2003 (Doc. 20-1). Thereafter, “corrupt judicial officials”
conspired to declare the deed null and void. Johnson refers to St. Clair County,
Illinois, Case No. 03-MR-326.
The relevant state court documents demonstrate the complete frivolity,
falsity, and fraudulent nature of Johnson’s alleged claim. Thus, this Court will
not waste more judicial resources than absolutely necessary in swiftly disposing of
Johnson from this action.

Johnson’s interest in the Real Property was

1

The Court notes that Johnson has filed a 36 page “memorandum of law” in support of his
opposition to LeChien’s motion to strike (Doc. 21-1). The Court strikes the memorandum as it far
exceeds the page limit allowed by the Local Rules of this District. See SDIL-LR 7.1.

Page 3 of 7

determined by St. Clair County Judge Ellen Dauber in 2006 (Doc. 18-5).
Johnson failed to appear before her and judgment was entered against him. The
quitclaim deed executed on August 22, 2003, was declared null and void and of
no effect for lack of consideration (Id.). Johnson did not appeal the judgment
entered against him. Johnson asks that this Court essentially set-aside the state
court judgment on the basis of unsubstantiated claims of fraud and corruption.
The frivolity of these allegations aside, this Court is without authority to set aside
the state court judgment. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic. Indus. Corp.,
544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts
from hearing, “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused
by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings
commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.”).
Moreover, even if Johnson had a legitimate claim to the Real Property, which he
most certainly does not, such a claim would be untimely.
In summary, the Court has reviewed, to the extent possible, Johnson’s
pleadings, claimant LeChien’s motion to strike, and the responses to Johnson’s
motions (Docs. 20, 25, and 26).

Johnson’s claim is frivolous, false, and

fraudulent. Johnson has known since 2006 (at the latest) that he does not have a
valid interest in the Real Property. Thus, his claim is obviously not warranted by
existing law and he has no non-frivolous argument for reversing existing law. His
factual contentions do not have evidentiary support and he has needlessly
Page 4 of 7

increased the cost of this litigation.
(Doc. 18).

LeChien’s motion to strike is GRANTED

Johnson’s remaining motions are STRICKEN and alternatively

DENIED with prejudice as they are based on allegations that are frivolous, false,
and fraudulent (Docs. 22 and 23).
Finally, the Court shall address the issue of sanctions. As the government
points out, 18 U.S.C. § 983(h), provides:
(1) In any civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute in
which the Government prevails, if the court finds that the claimant's
assertion of an interest in the property was frivolous, the court may
impose a civil fine on the claimant of an amount equal to 10 percent
of the value of the forfeited property, but in no event shall the fine be
less than $250 or greater than $5,000.
(2) Any civil fine imposed under this subsection shall not preclude
the court from imposing sanctions under rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
(3) In addition to the limitations of section 1915 of title 28, United
States Code, in no event shall a prisoner file a claim under a civil
forfeiture statute or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding
based on a civil forfeiture statute if the prisoner has, on three or
more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous or malicious, unless the
prisoner shows extraordinary and exceptional circumstances.
18 U.S.C. § 983(h)(1), (2), and (3).
Johnson, who is currently incarcerated in St. Clair County Jail, has had
three or more prisoner actions dismissed in this Court on the grounds that they
were frivolous. See, e.g., Johnson v. Churchich, 94-538-PER (dismissed as
frivolous 1/24/95); Johnson v. Stanley, 95-507-WDS (dismissed as frivolous
Page 5 of 7

8/7/95); Johnson v. Washington, 95-819-PER (dismissed as frivolous 7/11/96).
On the basis of the above, the Court finds that Johnson’s assertion of an
interest in the property is frivolous, false, fraudulent, and filed in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 983(h). Moreover, on the basis of the above, Johnson’s pleadings to the
Court are in violation of FEDERAL RULE

OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 11(b). Pursuant to

Rule 11(c)(3), the Court Orders Johnson to SHOW CAUSE on or before March
10, 2014, why the Court should not enter monetary sanctions against him.
Failure to demonstrate to the Court that Johnson’s pleadings are not in violation
of Rule 11(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 983(h) shall result in the imposition of monetary
sanctions without further notice.

Page 6 of 7

III. Conclusion
On the basis of all of the above, the Court GRANTS claimant LeChien’s
motion to strike (Doc. 18). Johnson’s claim (Doc. 14) is untimely, frivolous, false,
fraudulent, and in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 983(h).

His motion to dismiss (Doc.

16) is STRICKEN. His remaining motions (Docs. 22 and 23) are STRICKEN and
alternatively DENIED with prejudice. 2 Default judgment shall be entered against
Johnson at the end of the case. He is to take nothing from this action. Finally,
Johnson must SHOW CAUSE by March 10, 2014, as to why monetary sanctions
should not be imposed against him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 10th day of February, 2014.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2014.02.10
14:32:07 -06'00'
Chief Judge
U.S. District Court

2

Johnson also requests a file-stamped copy of his motion for judicial intervention (Doc. 23), as he
was “denied the right to make legal copies at the St. Clair Co. Sheriff Dept.” (Doc. 24). Johnson’s
motion is denied. The undersigned is not in the practice of handing out free copies of documents
within the Court’s file without a showing of a need for a specific, non-frivolous purpose and
indigence, especially when the person seeking a free copy provided the original document to the
Court.

Page 7 of 7