IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ALWANNA KNIGHT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 11

)

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Alwanna Knight (“Knight”) has filed a document that she captions: MOTON [sic] FOR

RECONSIDERATION VACATE ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT DUE TO ERROR, AND

OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF CASE BEFORE THE COURT, RESET HEARING DATE,

APPOINT COUNSEL. Unfortunately Knight has again failed to understand the basis for this

Court’s actions in her case. This Court had no knowledge whatever of the litigation involving

her godson Joe Louis Lawrence, who appeared in her absence at the scheduled May 16 1

hearing, and a copy of whose filing in the Court of Appeals she has attached as Group Ex. A to

her current filing. Instead this Court’s references to Knight’s lawsuit, both before and during the

May 16 hearing, have always been reflective of her submissions in this action.

To avoid having to reinvent the wheel, this Court attaches copies of its January 5 and

February 1 memorandum orders and its March 5 memorandum, all entered in this action. It is

Knight’s own initial filing that failed the requirement of the assertion of a non-frivolous claim (in

the legal sense) that is a precondition to the granting of in forma pauperis treatment under

Seventh Circuit law. This Court did not order Knight to pay the $350 filing fee as she asserts –

Indeed, this Court was unaware of the godson relationship until it received Knight’s current 1

filing.

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:180
it is rather that this Court applied this Circuit’s principle that in the absence of a grant of in forma

pauperis status a plaintiff can proceed with litigation only upon such a payment.

Meanwhile, on March 22 the Court of Appeals dismissed Knight’s attempted appeal for

nonpayment of the required docketing fee, eliminating any jurisdictional block to this Court’s

jurisdiction. This memorandum order therefore turns to Knight’s most recent filing.

As before, Knight’s current submission is littered with assertions and arguments that are

wholly beside the mark. Because she has not shown any rational ground for reconsideration,

Knight’s motion for reinstatement of her Complaint and for reconsideration of her motion for

appointment of counsel are denied. And because she has made no effort toward payment of

the filing fee in this District Court, this action is dismissed (as the January 5 memorandum order

had warned.)

___________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 30, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:181
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ALWANNA KNIGHT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 11

)

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Alwanna Knight (“Knight”) has tendered a bulky pro se

submission against defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC

(“Aurora”), the character of which submission can best be gleaned

from its caption:

Complaint of Civil Rights Violations

Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations

Judicial Corruption/Conspiracy

Judicial Fraud/Extortion (Stealing Homes)

Disparate Treatment

And if that blunderbuss characterization, coupled with a $10

million demand, had left any uncertainty as to the dubious nature

of Knight’s claims, it would be dispelled by reading her

“Jurisdictional Statement”:1

Order entered: October 18, 2011

Statute: Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations,

Disparate Unequal Protection of the Laws, Civil Rights

Violations, Reverse Racial Discrimination, Judicial

Extortion, Judge Acting outside of their immunity

provisions, Anarchy, Jim Crowism, Treason, No

 That “Jurisdictional Statement” is placed on a page that 1

is headed with a different case caption, obviously copied from a

state court mortgage foreclosure action brought by Aurora, in

which Knight as mortgagor is one of several defendants.

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:182
Jurisdiction on Defendant, Canon Ethics violations,

Judicial Extortion, Judicial Abuse of Discretion,

Racial Terrorism Conspiracy, Perjury, Chicanery,

Public, Political, Fraternal Corruption Conspiracies,

Perjury, Fraud on the Courts and other UnConstitutional Lawless Violations.

And here is the caption of still another document that Knight has

proffered to accompany her Complaint:

PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING CIRCUIT JUDGE

DAVID B. ATKINS & ATTORNEYS DUTTON & DUTTON BANK

OFFICIALS CORROBORATION IN AN ORGANIZED CHAIN

CONSPIRACY “PERJURY” “FRAUD OF ALL SORTS”/CONTEMPT OF

COURT OTHER IRREGULARITIES REMAND/BODY ATTACHMENT

INSTANTER

MANDATORY INJUNCTION PROHIBITING SEIZING HOME

This Court has waded through the welter of documents

provided by Knight, who has quite understandably not expended

(or, more accurately, wasted) the $350 filing fee needed to gain

entry to the federal courthouse door. Instead she has

accompanied the other documents with two forms provided by this

District Court’s Clerk’s Office (an In Forma Pauperis Application

[“Application”] and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel

[“Motion”]), which she has completed with handwritten

information. But well-established Seventh Circuit law requires

that any plaintiff who seeks in forma pauperis treatment must not

only show inadequate financial resources but must also assert a

nonfrivolous claim (in the legal sense). Knight has obviously

flunked that latter requirement.

Accordingly the Application is denied, while the Motion is

denied without prejudice. If Knight were to pay the $350 filing

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:183
fee on or before January 25, 2012, this action could go forward.2

But if she does not, this Court will be constrained to dismiss

both the Complaint and this action.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 5, 2012

 As a caveat, Knight would be well advised to think hard 2

before making such an expenditure, for the nature of what she has

tendered to this point makes her ability to present a viable

claim seriously questionable.

3

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:184
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ALWANNA KNIGHT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 11

) USCA No. 12-1132

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On January 5, 2012 this Court issued a memorandum order

(“Order”) explaining why pro se plaintiff Alwanna Knight

(“Knight”) was not entitled to in forma pauperis treatment, not

in financial terms but because of her failure to assert a

nonfrivolous claim (in the legal sense). To that end this Court

had gone through Knight’s bulky documentation, which reflected

the mindset that everyone in sight (or perhaps even out of sight)

was conspiring against her. Some notion of that may be gleaned

from some of Knight’s headings reproduced in the Order.

Although the Order’s rejection of in forma pauperis

treatment for Knight would have spared her the potential waste of

the $350 filing fee that would have had to be paid for this

action to go forward (see Order n.2), Knight’s subsequent action

has proved again the aphorism that “no good deed goes

unpunished.” On January 17 (without this action having yet been

dismissed) she filed a notice of appeal that added this Court to

the coterie of judges and others who are assertedly conspiring

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/01/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:120 Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:185
against her--Knight’s “Jurisdictional Statement” is replete with

scurrilous characterizations that are truly outrageous (though

perhaps not unexpected, given her mindset that everyone who

disagrees with her is out to do her in).

In any event, on January 25 Knight tendered to the Court of

Appeals her motion seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and

on the same day that court ordered the motion to be transferred

to this District Court for ruling. Nothing has changed Knight’s

legal situation--her proposed appeal is just as frivolous in

legal terms as her Complaint was at the District Court level. 

This Court accordingly denies Knight’s in forma pauperis motion,

reminding her (as the Court of Appeals’ order did) that to place

the same motion before that court she must refile her motion

there (see Fed. R. App. P. 24).

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: February 1, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/01/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:121 Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:186
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ALWANNA KNIGHT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 11

) USCA No. 12-1132

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM1

Among the bizarre steps taken by pro se plaintiff Alwanna

Knight (“Knight”) in this action, the most recent is her filing

of an appeal even though this Court had not issued any

dispositive order in the case. On January 5, 2012 this Court

issued a memorandum order that explained why Knight was not

entitled to in forma pauperis treatment, not in financial terms

but because of her failure to assert a nonfrivolous claim in the

legal sense. Then on January 17 Knight filed a notice of appeal

that added this Court to the coterie of judges and others who are

assertedly conspiring against her, and on January 25 she tendered

to the Court of Appeals her motion seeking leave to appeal in

forma pauperis, whereupon that court ordered the motion to be

transferred to this District Court for ruling. On February 1

this Court responded by issuing another memorandum order II”)

 This memorandum repeats, often verbatim, some of the 1

things stated in the two earlier orders to which it refers. That

has been done simply to make clear the background that gives rise

to this memorandum.

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:129 Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:187
that denied Knight’s in forma pauperis motion and concluded by

“reminding her (as the Court of Appeals’ order did) that to place

the same motion before that court she must refile her motion

there (see Fed. R. App. P. 24).”

All of this has placed this action in limbo because it would

appear that Knight’s attempted appeal has ousted this Court of

jurisdiction. And whatever result may obtain in the Court of

Appeals in connection with any retendering of her in forma

pauperis effort there, the merits of Knight’s substantive claims

(or more accurately, what appears to be their lack of merit) will

not have been resolved at that point. Accordingly this Court

respectfully requests that it be notified forthwith as and when

the Court of Appeals takes action on Knight’s appeal.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 5, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:130 Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:188