Ellison v. Preferred Capital Funding of Illinois LLC et al
| Vernon Ellison |
| Preferred Capital Funding of Illinois LLC and Sorman & Frankel, Ltd. |
| 1:2023cv00524 |
| January 27, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John J Tharp |
| Contract: Recovery/Enforcement |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 22, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 JUDGMENT Order Signed by the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 3/22/2023. Mailed notice(air, ) |
| Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Upon review of the amended complaint #11 , and pursuant to the Court's prior order #10 , this case is dismissed and this is a final order. The Court once again stresses that it can only hear cases that it has jurisdiction over. Not every claim, regardless of how valid or important, can be resolved in federal court specifically. This means that even if Mr. Ellison is correct that he is being illegally or unfairly treated (which the Court is not saying one way or another), this specific Court, the federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, still cannot hear his case. This Court does not have jurisdiction because his claims neither related to a question of federal law nor between parties of different states (and for an amount in controversy of over $75,000). Further, to the extent that the motion asks the Court to investigate whether he has a claim, the Court has no jurisdiction or authority to conduct such an investigation; litigants are responsible for investigating their own claims and defenses. The dismissal of this claim is without prejudice to Mr. Ellison's ability to assert a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction, but he may not further amend his complaint in this Court. Mailed notice (air, ) |
| Filing 11 AMENDED Complaint by Vernon Ellison. (jh, ) |
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: In reviewing an in forma pauperis application, courts must also screen the complaint. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022-23 (7th Cir. 2013). Regardless of whether Mr. Ellison is qualified to proceed in forma pauperis based on his indigent status, his amended complaint #8 does not contain any allegations suggesting that this Court has any jurisdiction over the case. Rather, the case as presented in the amended complaint appears to assert a claim that his attorney in some other, unidentified matter, stole money from him and is threatening to have him arrested. Even if everything Mr. Ellison is alleging is true, there is no basis to conclude from the complaint that this case presents a federal question, a controversy of over $75,000 between citizens of different states, or any other type of case that is properly filed in federal court. The amended complaint is therefore dismissed. Plaintiff is advised to make an appointment with the Hibbler Pro Se Federal Court Help Desk, more information about which can be found on the Northern District of Illinois Website (https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Pages.aspx?/2+UWDbtVzCDq3Lu8BusuQ==). On its own motion, the Court will extend one further opportunity to Plaintiff to amend his complaint and adequately establish this Court's subject matter jurisdiction to hear his claim. Any further amended complaint must be filed by March 21, 2023. Failure to timely amend will result in dismissal of this case. Mailed notice (air, ) |
| Filing 9 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Vernon Ellison for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (jh, ) |
| Filing 8 RECEIVED Amended Complaint by Vernon Ellison. (jh, ) |
| MAILED Order dated 1/31/2023 with a blank Amended Complaint and a blank in forma Pauperis to the Plaintiff. (jh, ) |
Filing 7
ORDER: The plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is denied without prejudice. The application states that the plaintiff's only source of income for the past twelve months was $250.00 in food stamps (calling into question how the plaintiff has been able to subsist if that answer is accurate), while the complaint states that the plaintiff would be willing to pay $25.00 per month toward the loan balance at issue in the complaint, two points which are not readily reconcilable. Further, the answer to question 1 states the plaintiff is employed but does not provide any information about his employment, and the response to question 7 is blank despite the complaint concerning a debt the plaintiff owes. Clearly, the form has not been filled out accurately or completely. It also appears that, even if the filing fee issue is resolved, the complaint fails to invoke the Court's subject matter jurisdiction and must be amended for this case to proceed. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, which means that they can only hear certain kinds of cases. Typically, cases in federal court concern issues of federal law (federal question jurisdiction) or are among citizens of different states for amounts over $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction). A plaintiff's complaint needs to demonstrate that the dispute is one of the kinds of cases that federal courts can hear. Otherwise, the court must dismiss it. The complaint in this case indicates that the plaintiff has a dispute about interest that has accrued on a $600.00 loan and creditors' attempts to collect on that loan balance. The Court does not have jurisdiction over this kind of dispute; there is no issue of federal law raised and no basis for diversity or any other form of jurisdiction alleged. The motion for attorney representation #5 is denied due to lack of jurisdiction, though it can be reasserted if the plaintiff successfully applies for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (or pays the filing fee) and files an amended complaint that successfully invokes this Court's jurisdiction. If the plaintiff is unable to file an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis and an amended complaint by 2/28/23, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. He is free, however, to attempt to resolve his claim through a different court system, such as the state or municipal courts. Signed by the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 1/31/2023. Mailed notice (jh, )
|
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (jk2, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jk2, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Vernon Ellison for attorney representation (jk2, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Vernon Ellison for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (jk2, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Vernon Ellison. (jk2, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet by Vernon Ellison (jk2, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and 0 copies by Vernon Ellison. (Additional attachment(s) #1 Exhibit) Modified on 1/30/2023 (jk2, ). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
