Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03512/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03512-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 23, 2016*

Decided June 23, 2016

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐3512

YASMEEN STURDIVANT,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

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 C 4957

Robert W. Gettleman,

Judge.

O R D E R

Yasmeen Sturdivant appeals the dismissal of her suit loosely alleging civil rights

violations in connection with the sale of her home at an auction based on a foreclosure

judgment. We affirm.   

                                                 

* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 15-3512 Document: 23 Filed: 06/23/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15‐3512    Page 2

Sturdivant persists in trying to challenge this foreclosure. Slightly over a year ago,

we affirmed the dismissal—on insubstantiality grounds—of her action against U.S. Bank

and Select Portfolio Services after the mortgage on her house in Crete, Illinois, was

foreclosed. See Sturdivant v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 602 F. App’x 351 (7th Cir. 2015).

She promptly returned to federal court, and in this complaint she alleged that the

defendants violated her constitutional rights by selling her house despite knowing that

she had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief the previous day. In her view, her

bankruptcy filing entitled her to an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). She

specified that she meant to bring her suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).   

The district court dismissed this suit. To the extent she sought an order declaring

her to be the sole property owner, the court found her claim barred by the

Rooker‐Feldman doctrine. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v.

Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). To the extent she sought damages for defendants’

alleged violation of the automatic stay, the court rejected this claim as a matter of law:

under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(A), no automatic stay may go into effect if, as here, a debtor

files multiple bankruptcy petitions within a year (and Sturdivant had even been barred

from filing any additional petitions for 180 days). And to the extent she asserted

constitutional claims, the court explained that the defendants are not state actors.            

Sturdivant’s appeal from that decision is meritless. She again fails to provide any

explanation of how the defendants, all private corporations, are acting under color of

federal law. See Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66 n.2, 70–71 (2001); Muick v.

Glenayre Elecs., 280 F.3d 741, 742 (7th Cir. 2002). As with her prior suit, her allegations are

too insubstantial to invoke the district court’s federal‐question jurisdiction. See Hagans v.

Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537–38 (1974); Avila v. Pappas, 591 F.3d 552, 555 (7th Cir. 2010).   

Other litigants have been fined for filing similar complaints and briefs to the ones

Sturdivant used in her first suit challenging her foreclosure. See Carter v. Homeward

Residential, Inc., 794 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2015); Hayes v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, No. 15‐3408,

2016 WL 1239269 (7th Cir. Mar. 30, 2016) (nonprecedential decision); Cobige v. PHH

Mortg. Corp., No. 15‐2446, 2016 WL 1179792 (7th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016) (nonprecedential

decision); Mimms v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 630 F. App’x 627 (7th Cir. 2016). Sturdivant was not

warned last time, but as she continues to file meritless suits and appeals, we now order

her to show cause within 14 days why the court should not impose sanctions under

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. If she fails to pay any fine imposed as a sanction,

Case: 15-3512 Document: 23 Filed: 06/23/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15‐3512    Page 3

she may be barred from filing any other litigation in this circuit until she has done so.

See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995).   

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-3512 Document: 23 Filed: 06/23/2016 Pages: 3