Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03408/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03408-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal National Mortgage Association
Appellee
Stanley Hayes
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 28, 2016*

Decided March 30, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐3408

STANLEY D. HAYES,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 15 C 6409

Robert W. Gettleman,

Judge.

O R D E R

Stanley Hayes defaulted on his home mortgage, and in January 2013 an Illinois

court entered a judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Federal National Mortgage

Association. A judicial sale was conducted, and the state court approved the sale in

September 2013. Hayes brought this action in federal court, ostensibly under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, claiming that the Federal National Mortgage Association violated the

                                                 

* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 15-3408 Document: 20 Filed: 03/30/2016 Pages: 2
No. 15‐3408    Page 2

Constitution of the United States by filing the foreclosure action. The district court

dismissed the suit on the defendant’s motion.

The plaintiff’s complaint and appellate brief are familiar. Recently 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); Mimms v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 15‐2454,

2016 WL 234435 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2016) (nonprecedential decision); Sturdivant v. Select

Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 602 F. App’x 351 (7th Cir. 2015) (nonprecedential decision). Each

time we concluded that the complaints did not invoke the district court’s subject‐matter

jurisdiction. The same is true for the plaintiff’s complaint. His claims of constitutional

violations are too insubstantial to set out a basis for federal‐question jurisdiction, and his

lawsuit was properly dismissed.

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

was issued, making this appeal frivolous. Accordingly, we invoke Rule 38 of the Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure 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.”). Mr. Hayes shall respond within 14 days of the date of this order.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-3408 Document: 20 Filed: 03/30/2016 Pages: 2