Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02454/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02454-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted January 19, 2016*

 Decided January 20, 2016 

Before 

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 15-2454 

JEFFREY MIMMS and GLORIA MIMMS, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

U.S. BANK, N.A., et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 15 CV 3369 

Charles R. Norgle, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Jeffrey and Gloria Mimms defaulted on their home mortgage, and in May 2014 an 

Illinois court entered a judgment of foreclosure. A judicial sale was conducted in March 

2015, but the following month, before the state court had approved that sale, the 

Mimmses brought this action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They essentially 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is 

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 15-2454 Document: 19 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pages: 2
No. 15-2454 Page 2 

claim that the defendants, all private financial institutions, violated the Constitution of 

the United States by filing the foreclosure action. The district court dismissed the suit. 

The plaintiffs’ complaint and their appellate briefs are familiar. Twice previously 

we have reviewed complaints and briefs identical in both wording and typeface (except 

for details about the homeowners’ addresses and mortgages). See Carter v. Homeward 

Residential, Inc., 794 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2015); Sturdivant v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 602 

F. App’x 351, 351 (7th Cir. 2015). Both times we concluded that the complaints did not 

invoke the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The same is true for the plaintiffs’ 

complaint in this case, and their lawsuit was properly dismissed. 

We note that the plaintiffs filed and pursued this appeal after our opinion in 

Carter was issued, making this appeal frivolous. Accordingly, we invoke Rule 38 and 

issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for filing a frivolous 

appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 38 (“If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is 

frivolous, it may, after . . . notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, 

award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”). The Mimmses shall 

respond within 14 days of the date of this order. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-2454 Document: 19 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pages: 2