“District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense.”
How later courts described this case
- “District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAWSON ALGEE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:24-CV-00156-NJR
BA CREDIT CARD FUNDING, LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis filed
by Plaintiff Dawson Algee (Doc. 2). Unfortunately, the Court cannot assess the merits of
Algee’s Complaint (Doc. 1) with the information he has provided. Therefore, for the
reasons outlined below, the Court orders Algee to file an Amended Complaint.
The Court has reviewed Algee’s motion and finds that he is indigent. Algee
indicates that his income is approximately $1,700 annually. (Doc. 2). The majority of this
income appears to be from gifts or other sources, although he anticipates income of about
$200 from his work for DoorDash over the next two or three months. (Id.). While he has
not reported any regular monthly expenses, Algee attests that he has only $25 in his
possession currently and owes approximately $200 in financial obligations. (Id.). His only
additional asset is a 2008 Honda Accord that is currently undriveable and is only worth
about $4,000. (Id.). Based on these facts, the Court finds Algee’s poverty level justifies
granting him IFP status.
But that does not end the inquiry. Under Section 1915(e)(2), the Court must then
screen the indigent plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss the complaint if it is clearly frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim, or is a claim for money damages against an immune
defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir.
2003) (“District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently
defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense.”). Thus,
resolution of the motion to proceed IFP requires the undersigned to review the allegations
of the complaint.
In reviewing the complaint, the undersigned is aware that courts construe pro se
claims generously. Buechel v. United States, 746 F.3d 753, 758 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court
accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in the plaintiff’s favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2013). Conclusory statements and labels,
however, are not enough. The complaint must allege enough facts to “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 421 (7th Cir.
2013). That means “a plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in
the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to her
that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir.
2010). “[I[nstead that the plaintiff must give enough details about the subject-matter of
the case to present a story that holds together.” Id. at 404.
After reviewing the complaint, the Court cannot identify a plausible claim for
relief. Algee appears to be alleging that he was entitled to a line of credit with BA Credit
Card Funding, but he does not provide any support for this conclusion beyond letters he
wrote to BA Credit Card Funding after the line of credit was allegedly established. He
also seems to be alleging that the line of credit was established via his application, but he
does not provide the application or the legal source from which he concludes that the
application was sufficient to entitle him to a line of credit. Further, the statutes to which
Algee cites are inapplicable to any claim Algee himself could raise. All of the statutes
upon which Algee relies appear to be statues that are applicable only to banks as far as
this Court can conclude. The statutes exist to govern national banks yes, but they are also
designed to protect the banks themselves, not consumers. As a result, the Court is unable
to conclude precisely what claim Algee is attempting to bring with this action.
Because Algee has not clearly identified his claim for relief, the basis for this claim,
or the law under which he makes his claim, the Court ORDERS Algee to file an amended
complaint within 30 days (on or before March 5, 2024). The amended complaint should
clearly articulate the claim for relief, the grounds on which it is alleged, and the law which
applies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 5, 2024
wef fllmesig!
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL |
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 3