Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Harry D. Leinenweber Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 00153 DATE 6/3/2013

CASE

TITLE

El vs. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Pursuant to the Seventh Circuit’s Opinion vacating and remanding this matter (ECF No. 63), the Court (1)

dismisses Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, with prejudice, as a sanction for frivolous filings; (2) vacates the

default judgment in favor of AmeriCredit on its counterclaim (ECF No. 49); and (3) dismisses AmeriCredit’s

counterclaim without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Baba-Dainja El (“Plaintiff”) filed suit on January 9, 2012, seeking $34 million in compensatory

damages and $2.2 billion in punitive damages as a result of having a pickup truck he purchased for $28,000

repossessed and sold by Defendants. The Court dismissed his original Complaint without prejudice for being

frivolous, and suggested Plaintiff seek legal assistance before filing an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed an

Amended Complaint with immaterial changes, this time seeking $2.4 million in compensatory damages and

$7 billion in punitive damages. Plaintiff claimed federal jurisdiction based on the admiralty and diversity

jurisdictions of the federal courts. 

This Court dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice on July 11, 2012, and entered a default

judgment for Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (“AmeriCredit”) on its counterclaim on

September 6, 2012. Plaintiff appealed, and the Seventh Circuit ruled that this Court found diversity

jurisdiction erroneously. Indeed, the Seventh Circuit found that neither of Plaintiff’s jurisdictional bases,

admiralty or diversity, were present. As such, this Court did not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, nor

did it have supplemental jurisdiction over AmeriCredit’s counterclaim. The Seventh Circuit thus vacated and

remanded the decision to this Court with instructions to:

(1) either dismiss the plaintiff’s suit without prejudice or dismiss with prejudice, as a sanction

(not requested by the defendant, but within the court’s inherent authority); (2) vacate the

default judgment in favor of AmeriCredit on its counterclaim; and (3) dismiss the

counterclaim but without prejudice.

El v. AmeriCredit Fin. Servs., Inc., 710 F.3d 748, 754 (7th Cir. 2013). In light of how frivolous both

Plaintiff’s complaints are, and out of concern he will refile a third frivolous complaint just to harass

Defendant (or the judicial system), the Court chooses to dismiss the complaint with prejudice as a sanction.

12C00153 El vs. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. Et al. Page 1 of 2

Case: 1:12-cv-00153 Document #: 64 Filed: 06/03/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:611
STATEMENT

“A federal court has the inherent power to sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process. This

power is governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own

affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Barnhill v. United States, 11 F.3d

1360, 1367 (7th Cir. 1993)(quotations omitted). A court may impose the severe sanction of dismissal with

prejudice if the circumstances so warrant. Id. However, the sanction of dismissal with prejudice is

considered “draconian and must be infrequently resorted to by district courts.” Id. Only when the interests of

justice are best served by dismissal can this harsh sanction be consonant with the role of courts. Id. “A

dismissal with prejudice is a harsh sanction which should usually be employed only in extreme situations,

when there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, or when other less drastic sanctions have

proven unavailing.” Webber v. Eye Corp., 721 F.2d 1067, 1069 (7th Cir. 1983). Otherwise, a district court

must consider less severe sanctions and explain, where not obvious, their inadequacy for promoting the

interests of justice. Barnhill, 11 F.3d at 1367.

While this Court recognizes the rarity of using its inherent authority to dismiss an action with prejudice as a

sanction due to the severity of such measures, this case appears to be an instance where it is warranted. 

Plaintiff’s original Complaint was clearly frivolous. The Court gave him an opportunity to seek assistance

and amend his Complaint once already, and the Amended Complaint is just as nonsensical and frivolous as its

predecessor, if not more so. Indeed, the Seventh Circuit agreed that the Amended Complaint is frivolous, and

stated that if Plaintiff sought to refile this lawsuit, “the only motive for such a refiling could be harassment.” 

El, 710 F.3d at 750, 754. Defendant has been prejudiced by defending this suit, and would be prejudiced by

having to defend against if it were refiled. In addition, it would not be in the interests of justice, or a proper

use judicial resources, to allow Plaintiff to refile this action simply to continue harassing Defendant. 

The Court notes that no lesser sanction would serve the interests of justice in this matter, either. The act the

Court seeks to punish is the repeated pursuit of Plaintiff’s frivolous claims. No lesser sanctions will address

that act. As stated by the Seventh Circuit, the fact that this Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

claims does not foreclose such dismissal. Id (quoting Caribbean Broad. Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless

P.L.C., 148 F.3d 1080, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1998)(“[I]n rare circumstances, a district court may use its inherent

power to dismiss with prejudice (as a sanction for misconduct) even a case over which it lacks jurisdiction,

and its decision to do so is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”)).

Thus, pursuant to the Seventh Circuit’s instructions, this Court:

1.) Dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint, with prejudice, as a sanction for repeated frivolous

filings;

2.) Vacates the default judgment in favor of AmeriCredit on its counterclaim, ECF No. 49;

and

3.) Dismisses AmeriCredit’s counterclaim without prejudice. 

12C00153 El vs. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. Et al. Page 2 of 2

Case: 1:12-cv-00153 Document #: 64 Filed: 06/03/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:612