Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

VALENTE v. DONAHUE

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois


June 25, 2004.

VALENTE
v.
DONAHUE.

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.

20040625

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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