The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BRANDON FEILING, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 26-cv-149-SMY
)
RAYMOND P. MARCHIORI, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, Chief District Judge:
This case is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Brandon Feiling’s Motion for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) and preliminary screening of his Amended Complaint
(Doc. 6). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an indigent party may commence an action without paying
required costs and fees upon submission of an affidavit demonstrating the inability “to pay such
fees or give security therefor” and stating “the nature of the action, defense or appeal and the
affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Here, much of
Feiling’s affidavit is incomprehensible and missing responses to several of the prompts. As such,
Feiling has failed to establish indigent status.
Moreover, Feiling’s Amended Complaint would not survive threshold review. Under §
1915(e)(2), the Court may dismiss the Complaint of a party proceeding in forma pauperis if it
determines the action 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).
Feiling’s Amended Complaint and forty-five pages of attached exhibits are largely
incoherent. He attempts to assert claims for obstruction of justice, failure to allow fair trial, “aid
of fraud,” and violations of several federal statutes against various state agencies and officials.
However, his “Disclosure of Facts for Federal Jurisdiction” is mostly incomprehensible such that
the Court cannot discern who 1s alleged to have done what. Dismissal is appropriate when a “lack
of organization and basic coherence renders a complaint too confusing to determine the facts that
constitute the alleged wrongful conduct.” Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 798 (7th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, Feiling’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is DENIED, the
Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) is DISMISSED without prejudice, and all pending motions are
TERMINATED as MOOT. Feiling may file a second amended complaint and new motion to
proceed IFP within 30 days of this Order. Failure to file a legible amended complaint will result
in dismissal of this action with prejudice without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 17th, 2026 Nowe hf !
STACI M. YANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 2 of 2