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.
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
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