United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
June 25, 2004.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: PHILIP REINHARD, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Appellants have filed 10 separate appeals from bankruptcy court
orders in this court within a six day period (04 C 50263, 04 C
50264, 04 C 50268, 04 C 50269, 04 C 50271, 04 C 50272, 04 C
50273, 04 C 50274, 04 C 50278, 04 C 50279). Each of these appeals
is from an interlocutory order and leave to appeal has not been
granted or sought. 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(3). Appellants have
apparently decided to appeal the denial of every motion they file
in bankruptcy court and each of these motions appears on its face
to be frivolous. The court accordingly treats the notices of
appeal as motions for leave to appeal and denies leave to appeal
in each of these cases. These cases are dismissed. Appellants
previously filed four other appeals from orders of the bankruptcy
court within the last nine months. These appeals were all
meritless. Appellants' appeals have been filed in forma pauperis.
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the bankruptcy
court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 (3). The bankruptcy court should review any future
in forma pauperis filing to determine if it is in good faith.
These frivolous filings must stop. See Support Systems
Int'l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995). Every
filing requires expenditure of some portion of the judicial
systems resources and the court is charged with the
responsibility of insuring the resources are allocated in the
best interest of justice. Montgomery v. Davis, 362 F.3d 956,
957 (7th Cir. 2004). Appellants are advised that further
frivolous filings will likely lead to a filing ban as imposed in
Mack and Montgomery.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.