IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
January 5, 2012
ALWANNA KNIGHT, PLAINTIFF,
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
Alwanna Knight ("Knight") has tendered a bulky pro se submission against defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC ("Aurora"), the character of which submission can best be gleaned from its caption:
Complaint of Civil Rights Violations Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations Judicial Corruption/Conspiracy Judicial Fraud/Extortion (Stealing Homes)
Disparate Treatment And if that blunderbuss characterization, coupled with a $10 million demand, had left any uncertainty as to the dubious nature of Knight's claims, it would be dispelled by reading her "Jurisdictional Statement":*fn1
Order entered: October 18, 2011 Statute: Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations, Disparate Unequal Protection of the Laws, Civil Rights Violations, Reverse Racial Discrimination, Judicial Extortion, Judge Acting outside of their immunity provisions, Anarchy, Jim Crowism, Treason, No Jurisdiction on Defendant, Canon Ethics violations, Judicial Extortion, Judicial Abuse of Discretion, Racial Terrorism Conspiracy, Perjury, Chicanery, Public, Political, Fraternal Corruption Conspiracies, Perjury, Fraud on the Courts and other UnConstitutional Lawless Violations.
And here is the caption of still another document that Knight has proffered to accompany her Complaint:
PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING CIRCUIT JUDGE DAVID B. ATKINS & ATTORNEYS DUTTON & DUTTON BANK OFFICIALS CORROBORATION IN AN ORGANIZED CHAIN CONSPIRACY "PERJURY" "FRAUD OF ALL SORTS"/CONTEMPT OF COURT OTHER IRREGULARITIES REMAND/BODY ATTACHMENT INSTANTER MANDATORY INJUNCTION PROHIBITING SEIZING HOME
This Court has waded through the welter of documents provided by Knight, who has quite understandably not expended (or, more accurately, wasted) the $350 filing fee needed to gain entry to the federal courthouse door. Instead she has accompanied the other documents with two forms provided by this District Court's Clerk's Office (an In Forma Pauperis Application ["Application"] and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel ["Motion"]), which she has completed with handwritten information. But well-established Seventh Circuit law requires that any plaintiff who seeks in forma pauperis treatment must not only show inadequate financial resources but must also assert a non-frivolous claim (in the legal sense). Knight has obviously flunked that latter requirement.
Accordingly the Application is denied, while the Motion is denied without prejudice. If Knight were to pay the $350 filing fee on or before January 25, 2012, this action could go forward.*fn2
But if she does not, this Court will be constrained to dismiss both the Complaint and this action.