Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

James F. Holderman Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 2594 DATE April 13, 2012

CASE

TITLE

Cross vs. Chase Bank, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons explained in the Statement section of this Order, Plaintiffs’ complaint [1] is dismissed

without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to file

an amended complaint by May 15, 2012. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis [4] is

denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file individual, complete financial affidavits by May 15, 2012 if

they wish to renew their motion.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

On April 9, 2012, Plaintiffs Charles L. Cross and Rebecca Taylor filed a complaint against Chase

Bank and Chase Home Finance (Dkt. No. 1 (“Pls.’ Compl.”), as well as a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 5.)

Requests to proceed in forma pauperis are reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. To ensure that indigent

litigants have meaningful access to the courts, § 1915 allows an indigent litigant to commence an action in

federal court without paying the administrative costs of the lawsuit. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 27

(1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1988). However, the court must deny a request to proceed in

forma pauperis if (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action is frivolous; (3) the action fails to state

a claim; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); See

Hutchinson v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 1997) (recognizing the applicability of § 1915 to cases

brought by non-prisoners). 

The court notes that Plaintiffs1

 have filed a joint in forma pauperis application. Plaintiffs need only

pay one fee, because the normal rule in civil litigation is one filing fee per suit, rather than per litigant. See

Sundstrom v. Frank, No. 06-C-0112, 2006 WL 2038204, at *1 (E.D.Wis. 2006) (citing 28 U .S.C. § 1914(a)). 

However, Plaintiffs should file a separate application for each of them, as the manner in which the

application was completed is confusing. The court cannot tell which Plaintiff’s employment is referred to in

Question 2, although Taylor completed and signed the financial affidavit. Additionally, in response to

Question 2, Taylor indicates that she (or perhaps Cross) is employed by what appears to be a church or

religious group, but lists the monthly income from that job as zero. In fact, Plaintiffs indicate that they have

no source of support through employment, government aid, or other means.2

The court is skeptical that Plaintiffs have no source of support of any means, and points out that the

affidavit is incomplete, as Plaintiffs have not answered Questions 5 and 6 relating to bank accounts and

investments. In order for this court to evaluate Plaintiffs’ application, the court must have complete and

correct information about their financial status. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed in

12C2594 Cross vs. Chase Bank, et al. Page 1 of 2

Case: 1:12-cv-02594 Document #: 6 Filed: 04/13/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:15
STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs’ relationship is unclear, although they apparently are not spouses, based on the

information disclosed in the financial affidavit included with their application for pauper status. 

2. The court notes that Question 4 asks Plaintiffs to list their income or the income of anyone

living in their residence from several sources. Plaintiffs note that a woman named Aurora

Volkman earned $150.00 from self-employment, but it is not clear whether that is a weekly,

monthly, or annual total.

forma pauperis is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs may each file complete in forma pauperis affidavits by

May 15, 2012, at which time they may renew their motion. The court will consider their request for

appointment of counsel at that time.

Additionally, the court points out that in its present form, Plaintiffs’ complaint is vague and

confusing. This is in part because the complaint is filled out on the form complaint for violations of

constitutional rights, although what Plaintiffs actually allege appears to be related to an allegedly wrongful

foreclosure of their home and perhaps a violation of the Truth in Lending Act. (Pls.’ Compl. ¶¶ 9,10.)

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement of

both the plaintiff’s claims and the basis for this court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint includes neither,

and as such is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Plaintiffs are given leave to file an amended complaint by May 15, 2012.

Plaintiff’s complaint should describe what happened and when in short, numbered paragraphs that

explain how the Defendants are responsible for the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. Resources that may be helpful

to Plaintiffs in formulating their complaint can be found on the court’s website at

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/ProSe.aspx. Additionally, Plaintiffs may seek help in preparing their

complaint from the Pro Se Assistance Program. This program operates by appointment only, and

appointments may be made at the Clerk’s Office Intake Desk, Dirksen Building, 219 S. Dearborn St., 20th

floor, or by calling (312) 435-5691.

12C2594 Cross vs. Chase Bank, et al. Page 2 of 2

Case: 1:12-cv-02594 Document #: 6 Filed: 04/13/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:16