Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


February 27, 1996


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, District Judge:


Poole — an incarcerated criminal defendant — filed a patently frivolous lien.

Such conduct cannot be tolerated.

Summary judgment is granted in favor of the United States.

I. Background

In 1991, Jimmie Dale Poole was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(e). A few years after the conviction, Defendant Poole filed with the Sangamon County Recorder a "notification of commercial lien" against several individuals involved in the 1991 conviction — namely; United States District Judge Harold A. Baker, United States Attorney J. William Roberts,*fn1 Assistant United States Attorney Lawrence Beaumont, United States Probation Officer Susan Silver, and Defense Counsel F. James Roytek. The lien is in the amount of $5,000,000 per individual. The basis of the lien is a claim that the five individuals breached a "contract" when they participated in the 1991 conviction.

Thereafter, Poole filed a complaint in Sangamon County, Illinois, alleging that the five individuals failed to respond to his lien. Poole sought $5,000,000 and release from prison. The five individuals removed the case to this Court. We dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Poole v. Baker, 874 F. Supp. 222 (C.D.Ill. 1994). Additionally, we refused to transfer the case — concluding that the lien was completely frivolous. Id. at 224.

A few months later, the United States initiated a civil action under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 against Poole seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin a mail fraud — the frivolous lien. United States v. Poole, No. 94-3167 (C.D.Ill. March 8, 1995). The Court concluded, however, that the mail fraud was not ongoing, thus, an action under § 1345 was not proper. The United States' motion for summary judgment was therefore denied and the case was dismissed.

Now, the United States and AUSA Beaumont seek a judgment — pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202 — declaring that the lien is invalid and an order directing Poole to release the lien.

II. Summary Judgment — Legal Standard

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment shall be granted if the record shows that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Black v. Henry Pratt Co., 778 F.2d 1278, 1281 (7th Cir. 1985). The moving party has the burden of providing proper documentary evidence to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists when "there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Unquestionably, in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the evidence is to be taken in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Once the moving party has met its burden, the opposing party must come forward with specific evidence, not mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, which demonstrates that there is a genuine issue for trial. Howland v. Kilquist, 833 F.2d 639 (7th Cir. 1987).

III. Discussion

Our analysis begins with a brief discussion regarding subject matter jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1345 — which provides that "the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress." (emphasis ours).*fn2 See United States v. Ekblad, 732 F.2d 562, 563 (7th Cir. 1984) ("Congress had vested in the district court jurisdiction over `any case commenced by the United States.'") (quoting, 28 U.S.C. § 1345).*fn3

The Court initially expressed some concern regarding the appropriateness of the United States initiating this action, but that concern has been dispelled. As noted by the Seventh Circuit, "[t]he United States has standing to seek relief from actual or threatened interference with the performance of its proper governmental functions." Ekblad, 732 F.2d at 563. The Court believes ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.