Ruel et al v. First Illinois Bancorp, Inc. et al

Filing 42

ORDER, GRANTING 27 Second MOTION to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Support filed by BKD Advisors and 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by First Illinois Bancorp, Inc., M. Leon Hall.Plaintiff's F irst Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failureto state a claim. This Order resolves all claims against all parties. Accordingly, the Clerkof Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and to CLOSE this case. In lightof this dismissal, and because Plaintiff has already paid the filing fee for this action,Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 39), is DENIED. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 1/18/2023. (dsw)

Case 3:22-cv-00228-DWD Document 42 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #107

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RICHARD RUEL,
et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
FIRST ILLINOIS BANCORP, INC.,
et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 22-cv-228

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants M. Leon
Hall and First Illinois Bancorp, Inc. dba Lindell Bank (collectively, “Lindell Bank
Defendants”) (Doc. 26) and a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant FORVIS, LLP f/k/a
BKD, LLP, incorrectly named as “BKD Advisors” (hereafter, “BKD”) (Doc. 27).
The Court granted several extensions to allow Plaintiff Richard Ruel to retain
counsel to assist him in responding to the pending motions (Docs. 29, 31, and 33). On
August 4, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a response to the motions to dismiss on
or before September 19, 2022. Plaintiff was advised that a failure to file a response by this
deadline may, in the Court’s discretion, be considered an admission of the merits of the
motions (Doc. 33). See SDIL-LR 7.1(c). Plaintiff failed to timely respond. Instead, on
September 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion asking to be referred to the Court’s mandatory

1

Case 3:22-cv-00228-DWD Document 42 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #108

mediation program (Doc. 35). He also filed a “supplement” to his First Amended
Complaint (Doc. 36). For the reasons that follow, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initially filed this lawsuit pro se, paying the full filing fee, on behalf of
Metro Chamber of Commerce, Rasheed Ali, and Ulice Jordan on February 9, 2022. (Doc.
2). Defendants filed motions to dismiss on April 7th and 8th, 2022. (Docs. 16 and 19).
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a response to the motions, asking that the complaint not be
dismissed because, as a pro se litigant, he did not fully understand the legal implications
of filing a civil rights complaint. (Doc. 21). Additionally, Plaintiff sought leave to file a
First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 21).
The Court directed Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint on or before May
18, 2022. (Doc. 22). The Court further stated that, when drafting his amended complaint,
Plaintiff should be aware of the following:
Ruel, as a pro se litigant, cannot bring this lawsuit on behalf of other litigants
without the assistance of counsel. See e.g., Georgakis v. Illinois State Univ.,
722 F.3d 1075, 1077 (7th Cir. 2013) (“A nonlawyer can't handle a case on
behalf of anyone except himself.”). Accordingly, the First Amended
Complaint should only bring claims on behalf of Ruel.
The First Amended Complaint must contain “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a), in order to “give defendants fair notice of the claims against them and
the grounds for supporting the claims.” Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797
(7th Cir. 2011).
A successful complaint generally alleges “the who, what, when, where, and
how ...” See DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990). Thus,
the First Amended Complaint should identify who violated Ruel’s
2

Case 3:22-cv-00228-DWD Document 42 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #109

constitutional rights, include a description of how his rights were violated,
and disclose when that violation took place.
(Doc. 22, pp. 2-3). The Court also denied Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel
(Doc. 23).
On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 24). The caption
of the First Amended Complaint lists himself as the plaintiff and First Illinois Bancorp,
Inc. D/B/A Lindell Bank, BKD Advisors, LLP, and M. Leon Hall as defendants. The
statement of claim, in its entirety, provides as follows:
Plaintiff alleges his company Metro Chamber of Commerce a Non-Profit
and its affiliate Heritage Investments Capital, LLC a for profit company was
denied a request for bank participation on three occasions by Mr. Leon
Hall/Owner and senior loan officer. The first offence occurred 8/2014 for
$1.5 Million, second 7/2019 again for $1.5 Million and third offence
occurred 1/14/2022.
(Doc. 24, p. 5). Plaintiff further claims that the above-described conduct violated the Civil
Rights Act of 1866. Plaintiff seeks $120,000,000 in compensatory damages, $120,000,000
in punitive damages, and equitable relief directing defendants to allow “Plaintiff to
fulfillment of Qualified Equity Investment into his Certified Development Entity (CDE)
to gain access to Development that include tax credits, energy tax credits, opp>o@rtunity
>z@one investments.” (Doc. 24, p. 6).
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on June 1, 2022
(Docs. 26 and 27). The motions cite the Plaintiff’s inability to bring a suit on behalf of
others given his status as a pro se litigant as well as the limited details and conclusory
remarks in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as bases for dismissal under Federal Rules of
3

Case 3:22-cv-00228-DWD Document 42 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #110

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants also contend that dismissal is warranted under
Local Rule 7.1(c).
On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 28), stating
that he was in the process of retaining an attorney and requesting a 90-day extension to
respond to the motions to dismiss. The Court granted the request in part and stayed the
case for 30 days to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to hire an attorney. Plaintiff filed a
second Motion for Extension of Time on July 19, 2022, stating he was still attempting to
retain an attorney. (Doc. 30). The Court gave Plaintiff an additional 14 days to obtain
counsel (Doc. 31). On August 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a third motion seeking an extension
(Doc. 32). The Court denied Plaintiff’s third request for an extension and directed him to
respond to the pending motions on or before September 19, 2022. (Doc. 33). The Court
also warned Plaintiff that a failure to timely respond may, in the Court’s discretion, be
considered an admission on the merits of the motions. Id. See also SDIL-LR 7.1(c). Instead
of responding to the motions, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s previous order and
requested that he be placed into the Pro Se Mediation Program. (Doc. 35).
II.

Applicable Authority

On a defendant's motion to dismiss, all facts in the complaint are accepted as
true. Doss v. Clearwater Title Co., 551 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2008). The complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). To state a cognizable claim, the complaint must provide
enough detail to give defendants fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds
4

Case 3:22-cv-00228-DWD Document 42 Filed 01/18/23 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #111

upon which it rests and to show that relief is plausible. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 554–56 (2007). Conclusory statements or the mere recitation of the elements of
the cause of action are insufficient. Id. The pleading must contain factual allegations that
“raise the right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129
S.Ct. 1937 (2009), the Supreme Court emphasized two underlying principles in Twombly :
first, that legal conclusions stated in a complaint are not entitled to the assumption of
truth reserved to factual allegations; and second, to survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must state a plausible claim for relief. “Where the well-pleaded facts do not
permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” Id. at
1950 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
include sufficient factual allegations to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Factual plausibility exists
when a plaintiff alleges “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
The plausibility standard requires more than “a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Id. Facts “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability “stop short
of

the

line

between

possibility

and

plausibility

” Id. (quoting Twombly, 544 U.S. at 557).

5

of

‘entitlement

to

relief.’

Case 3:22-cv-00228-DWD Document 42 Filed 01/18/23 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #112

III.

Discussion

Local Rule 7.1(c) of this District provides that failure to respond to
a dismissal motion “may, in the court's discretion, be considered an admission of the
merits of the motion.” In the instant case, the Court deems Plaintiff to have admitted the
merits of the pending motions to dismiss. However, even if the Court opted to ignore
Plaintiff’s failure to respond, a merits-based review of the pending motions yields the
same result- Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is due to be dismissed.
The First Amended Complaint alleges discrimination in the application process
for loans and grants, and claims that Defendants’ conduct violated the “Civil Rights Act
of 1866.” Although Plaintiff names only himself as a plaintiff in the case, the body of the
complaint does not allege any claims on behalf of Plaintiff. Instead, Plaintiff asserts claims
on behalf of his company, Metro Chamber of Commerce, and its affiliate Heritage
Investments Capital, LLC. As the Court previously explained, however, a nonlawyer
cannot bring claims on behalf of anyone except himself. See e.g., Georgakis v. Illinois State
Univ., 722 F.3d 1075, 1077 (7th Cir. 2013).
The Complaint is also subject to dismissal for failure to comply with federal
pleading requirements. In a barebones fashion, Plaintiff alleges that “Mr. Leon Hall”
unlawfully denied “requests” by his company and its affiliate for “bank participation.”
But like the original complaint, the First Amended Complaint provides no additional
details regarding these alleged “requests” for “bank participation.” For example, the First
Amended Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff, his company, or its affiliate, ever
6

Case 3:22-cv-00228-DWD Document 42 Filed 01/18/23 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #113

properly submitted a completed applications for these “requests” for “bank
participation.” Further, the First Amended Complaint does not include any allegations
directed against First Illinois Bankcorp or BKD. A plaintiff cannot state a claim against a
defendant by merely including the defendant's name in the caption. See Collins v.
Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 335 (7th Cir. 1998). In short, Plaintiff has not set forth facts that would
place Defendants on notice of the claims against them. As such, the First Amended
Complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 and the directions
provided by the Court on April 27, 2022.
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1866,
42 U.S.C. § 1981. “Section 1981 provides a federal remedy against racial discrimination in
private employment.” McCurry v. Kenco Logistics Servs., LLC, 942 F.3d 783, 789 (7th Cir.
2019). Plaintiff, however, does not allege that he (his company or its affiliate) had any sort
of employment relationship with any of the Defendants. Absent an employment
relationship, the section 1981 claims are not cognizable as a matter of law. Id. at 789-90.
See also General Bldg. Contractors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 392 (1982).
For these reasons, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint will be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim. Because this is Plaintiff’s second attempt to file a
viable complaint and because the Court finds that amendment would be futile, Plaintiff
will not be given another opportunity to amend his complaint. See Zimmerman v. Bornick,
25 F.4th 491, 493-94 (7th Cir. 2022) (a district court has discretion to deny leave
to amend if an amendment would be futile or unwarranted).
7

Case 3:22-cv-00228-DWD Document 42 Filed 01/18/23 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #114

Conclusion
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to state a claim. This Order resolves all claims against all parties. Accordingly, the Clerk
of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and to CLOSE this case. In light
of this dismissal, and because Plaintiff has already paid the filing fee for this action,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 39), is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 18, 2023

DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

8