Stanley v. Lopinot et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING CASE - Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2 ) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 7/29/2016. (hjg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TIMOTHY WILSON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 16-cv-0678-SMY-PMF

ARTHUR STANLEY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Arthur Stanley's Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED
and this case DISMISSED with prejudice.
A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma
pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The test for determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is whether
the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in support of the claim. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247 (7th Cir. 1983).
When assessing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court should inquire into the
merits of the plaintiff's claims, and if the court finds them to be frivolous, it should deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982).
The Court is satisfied from Stanley's affidavit that he is indigent. However, the Court finds that
he cannot make a rational argument on the law or facts in support of his claim. Stanley is no
stranger to this Court. In his current Complaint (Doc. 1), Stanley makes a series of claims
against various judges and officials in the State of Illinois, as well as Timothy Wilson. The root

of Plaintiff's claims is that a foreclosure and eviction proceeding was wrongfully commenced
against him in St. Clair County, Illinois. His request for relief in this action is that the Court
brings criminal charges and grants him relief from harassment and attempts to deprive him of
property and liberty. He alleges that the legal proceedings in St. Clair County court were sham
proceedings and that there are several conspiracies by the judiciary and St. Clair County Sheriff's
department to harass him. He also alleges that United States District Judge David Herndon sat in
state court and pretended to be the state court judge, Judge Vincent Lopinot, over Plaintiff's state
court legal proceedings.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), the Court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that…the action…frivolous or malicious" or "fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted…" A claim may be dismissed as frivolous, under the IFP statute, when the
claim's factual contentions are clearly baseless or when the claim is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory. Wemple v. All Illinois Judicial Circuits, 778 F.Supp.2d 930, 932 (C.D. Ill.
April 21, 2011). Here, Plaintiff's factual contentions are clearly baseless. He gives no basis for
his allegations other than conspiracy theories and bizarre suppositions. These allegations have
no basis in fact or law, rendering Plaintiff's Complaint frivolous. Accordingly, this Complaint
must be dismissed.
Insofar as this is Plaintiff's seventh frivolous or remanded lawsuit, he 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 be allowed to be filed, and any

2

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 actions
related to his state court proceedings in this court.
For the foregoing reasons, Stanley's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is
DENIED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED
to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 29, 2016

s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE

3