IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
February 1, 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
USCA No. 12-1132
On January 5, 2012 this Court issued a memorandum order ("Order") explaining why pro se plaintiff Alwanna Knight ("Knight") was not entitled to in forma pauperis treatment, not in financial terms but because of her failure to assert a non-frivolous claim (in the legal sense). To that end this Court had gone through Knight's bulky documentation, which reflected the mindset that everyone in sight (or perhaps even out of sight) was conspiring against her. Some notion of that may be gleaned from some of Knight's headings reproduced in the Order.
Although the Order's rejection of in forma pauperis treatment for Knight would have spared her the potential waste of the $350 filing fee that would have had to be paid for this action to go forward (see Order n.2), Knight's subsequent action has proved again the aphorism that "no good deed goes unpunished." On January 17 (without this action having yet been dismissed) she filed a notice of appeal that added this Court to the coterie of judges and others who are assertedly conspiring against her--Knight's "Jurisdictional Statement" is replete with scurrilous characterizations that are truly outrageous (though perhaps not unexpected, given her mindset that everyone who disagrees with her is out to do her in).
In any event, on January 25 Knight tendered to the Court of Appeals her motion seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and on the same day that court ordered the motion to be transferred to this District Court for ruling. Nothing has changed Knight's legal situation--her proposed appeal is just as frivolous in legal terms as her Complaint was at the District Court level. This Court accordingly denies Knight's in forma pauperis motion, reminding her (as the Court of Appeals' order did) that to place the same motion before that court she must refile her motion there (see Fed. R. App. P. 24).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.