“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
RUSSELL ALLEN BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:26-CV-518-NJR
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS, DENIS
MCDONOUGH, DAVID GRAY,
ROBERT D. HENINGTON, FIRST MID
BANK & TRUST, REGINA NELSON,
SHELLY MOUTRAY, JASON
CROWDER, SKYLA MILNER, JADEN
TROTTER, MILWAUKEE VA
FIDUCIARY HUB, and SOUTHERN
ILLINOIS FINANCIAL SERVICES NFP,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Russell Allen Brown’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8), Motion for Production of Records and Full
Accounting (Doc. 11), and Amended Complaint (Doc. 6). In this Court’s prior order
(Doc. 5), it granted Brown’s Motion and Affidavit to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 3) but determined his Complaint (Doc. 2) was deficient
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; consequently, Brown was ordered to file an
amended complaint (Doc. 5). In his amended complaint, Brown alleges that Defendants
have fraudulently withheld a portion of a monetary award to which he is entitled.
(Doc. 6). He seeks compensatory, punitive, declaratory, and injunctive relief. Id.
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Brown asks this Court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against
Defendants First Mid Bank & Trust, David Gray, and Robert Henington. (Doc. 8). He asks
this Court (1) to compel First Mid Bank & Trust to “restore [his] telephonic and in-person
access to account information and [his] funds”; (2) to prevent Henington or Gray from
withdrawing, transferring, or moving “any funds associated with [his] estate until a
court-ordered audit is completed”; and (3) to compel “the immediate production” of the
“2017 VA Award Letter” (though he does not specify which Defendants should be so
compelled).
The Court cannot grant Brown’s request for a TRO or other preliminary injunctive
relief because he has failed to satisfy its procedural prerequisites. For a TRO to be issued
without notice to the adverse party, the movant must satisfy the requirements of Rule
65(b)(1). FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1). In addition to setting forth specific facts “clearly
show[ing] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” the movant must certify in
writing (1) any efforts he made to give notice to the adverse party, and (2) reasons why
such notice should not be required. Id. Brown’s motion neither sets forth such facts nor
makes any certification of efforts to give notice or reasons why notice should not be
required. (Doc. 8). Consequently, his motion is denied without prejudice.
MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS AND FULL ACCOUNTING
Brown also asks this Court to compel Defendants David Gray and First Mid Bank
& Trust to produce a number of records relating to his complaint. (Doc. 11). This motion
is premature. Should his case advance to discovery, Brown will be able to seek these
records without this Court’s order. Accordingly, Brown’s motion is denied without
prejudice.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Because Brown is proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee, the Court must
screen the amended complaint (Doc. 6) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismiss it
if it is clearly frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
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.”).
In reviewing the amended complaint, it is not immediately apparent to the Court
that it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Nor does the amended
complaint appear frivolous or malicious. Further, Brown has complied with this Court’s
previous order (Doc. 5) directing him to clarify which individuals and entities he wished
to name as defendants. Because the Court has already determined that Brown is unable
to pay the filing fee, he may proceed on his amended complaint.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Russell Allen
Brown’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8) and Motion for Production of
Records and Full Accounting (Doc. 11). The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court
to provide Brown with a USM-285 form. Brown is ORDERED to return the completed
form to the Clerk of Court. Upon receipt of the completed USM-285 form, the Clerk is
DIRECTED to prepare and issue a summons for Defendants United States Department
of Veterans Affairs, Denis McDonough, David Gray, Robert D. Henington, First Mid
Bank & Trust, Regina Nelson, Shelly Moutray, Jason Crowder, Skyla Milner, Jaden
Trotter, Milwaukee VA Fiduciary Hub, and Southern Illinois Financial Services NFP, and
to deliver service packets for each Defendant consisting of the summons, USM-285 form,
and a copy of the Amended Complaint to the United States Marshals Service. The Court
DIRECTS the United States Marshal, upon receipt of these documents, to serve a copy of
the summons and the Amended Complaint upon Defendants in any manner consistent
with Rule 4, as directed by Plaintiff Russell Allen Brown. Costs of service shall be borne
by the United States.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 19, 2026 □
wefgh een!
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL |
United States District Judge
Page 4 of 4