Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02454/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02454-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 For appointment of a plenary guardian, the trial court must find the disabled adult

is totally without capacity. In re Estate of Fallos, 898 N.E.2d 793, 800 (Ill. Ct. App. 2008).

“The probate court, upon petition of a guardian, . . . and after notice to all other persons

interested as the court directs, may authorize the guardian to exercise any or all powers

over the estate and business affairs of the ward that the ward could exercise if present and

not under disability.” 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11a-18(a) (emphasis added). In addition,

“[a]ctions or applications of funds [by a guardian] may include, but shall not be limited to,

the following: . . . (2) conveying, releasing, or disclaiming his or her contingent and

expectant interests in property . . .; [and] (8) exercising the rights of the ward to elect benefit

or payment options, to terminate, to change beneficiaries or ownership, to assign rights, to

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Stoller, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-2454-PHX-GMS (JFM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Christopher Stoller, who is incarcerated in the Dixon Correctional Center in

Dixon, Illinois, commenced this action pro se in the Central District of Illinois. That Court

transferred the case to this District based on venue. (Doc. 1, 2.) Plaintiff subsequently

submitted to this Court a copy of a February 2011 Order issued by the Illinois Circuit Court

for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit (Illinois Probate Court) appointing the Illinois Office of

the State Guardian as plenary guardian over Plaintiff’s estate and person, case# 09 P 957.1

Case 2:11-cv-02454-GMS--JFM Document 56 Filed 02/14/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

borrow, or to receive cash value in return for a surrender of rights under any one or more of

the following: (i) life insurance policies, plans, or benefits, (ii) annuity policies, plans, or

benefits, (iii) mutual fund and other dividend investment plans, (iv) retirement, profit

sharing, and employee welfare plans and benefits; . . . . 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11-18(a-5)

(emphasis added). Finally, the guardian of the estate of a ward shall appear for and represent

the ward in all legal proceedings unless another person is appointed for that purpose as

guardian or next friend. . . . 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11a-18(c) (emphasis added). 

2

 The Probate Court noted a Physician’s Report in support of its determination. 

- 2 -

(Doc. 10, ex. 1.) The Illinois Probate Court determined that Plaintiff was “totally without

understanding or capacity to make and communicate decisions regarding his person” and his

estate.2

 (Id.) In an Order filed on January 3, 2012, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause

within 30 days why this action should not be dismissed based on his lack of legal capacity

to commence this action due to the guardianship. (Id.) On January 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed

a motion for extension of time to comply with the January 3, 2012 Order in any respect

despite filing various other matters in this case. (Doc. 32.) 

On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff, appearing for the first time through counsel, filed an

application to proceed in forma pauperis that substantially complied with the requirements

for a prisoner to proceed in forma pauperis, which had also been required by the January 3

Order. (Doc. 37.) Plaintiff’s counsel also filed a “Motion to Show Cause,” which the Court

construed as a Response to the January 3, 2012 Order. (Doc. 42.) In addition, Plaintiff’s

counsel filed a motion for entry of default and default judgment and a motion for injunctive

relief. (Doc. 40, 44.) 

On February 9, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff, now represented by counsel,

fourteen days in which to file a memorandum of points and authorities to support the

Response to the show cause order. (Doc. 48.) The Court stated that it would hold Plaintiff’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis in abeyance pending the filing of the memorandum

and denied the other motions. (Id.) 

Plaintiff, rather than his attorney, has now filed a notice of interlocutory appeal and

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Doc. 50, 52.) LR Civ.

Case 2:11-cv-02454-GMS--JFM Document 56 Filed 02/14/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

83.3(c)(2) provides that whenever an attorney has appeared for a party in a case, the party

may not thereafter appear or act in his own behalf or take any steps therein, unless a notice

of substitution of counsel shall have first been made, and that an attorney who has appeared

of record shall sign all papers filed on behalf of the party. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal has not been signed by his attorney and will be ordered stricken.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal is ordered stricken. (Doc. 52.) 

DATED this 14th day of February, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02454-GMS--JFM Document 56 Filed 02/14/12 Page 3 of 3