Stanley v. Wilson, Jr.

Filing 35

AMENDED ORDER denying (Doc. 29 ) Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 10/25/2016. (tfs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ARTHUR STANLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY WILSON, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-1252-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma
pauperis (Doc. 29). A federal court may permit a party to proceed on appeal without full prepayment of fees provided the party is indigent and the appeal is taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1) & (3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). The test for determining if an appeal is in good
faith and not frivolous is whether any of the legal points are reasonably arguable on their merits.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967));
Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000). There is no doubt Plaintiff is indigent.
However, the appeal is frivolous as Plaintiff’s case was dismissed based on this Court’s lack of
subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 5).
Moreover, given Plaintiff’s history of filing frivolous cases and pleadings (this is
Stanley’s sixth frivolous or remanded lawsuit), further discussion is warranted. Plaintiff is
ADVISED that under Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 1997) and Support
Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995), courts have inherent authority
to protect themselves from vexatious litigation by imposing fines and filing bands. In Alexander,
the Court warned that if the petitioner filed any further frivolous habeas petitions, he would be

fined $500; the fine would have to be paid before any other civil litigation would be allowed to
be filed, and any habeas action would be summarily dismissed thirty days after filing unless
otherwise ordered by the Court. Stanley should keep Alexander and Mack in mind before filing
any additional civil actions or pleadings in this Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 29) is
DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 25, 2016
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

2