Wilson v. Stanley

• Decision Date: 29 July 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 16-cv-0678-SMY-PMF
• Parties: TIMOTHY WILSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. ARTHUR STANLEY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois

TIMOTHY WILSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. ARTHUR STANLEY, Defendant.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

July 29, 2016

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), ...