contend that,
been destroyed.

denied.

as of July 30,

The motion to correct inaccuracies will be

As was stated in the prior ruling:

The in forma pauperis statute provides in
part: "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any
portion thereof, that may have been paid, the
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that (A) that allegation of
poverty is untrue." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (A).
Since the statute uses "shall," dismissal is
mandatory when the financial affidavit is false.
Thomas_v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.,

288 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir. 2002). It is within
the district court's discretion as to whether to
dismiss the case with or without prejudice. Id.
at 307-08; Mathis v. New York Life Insurance Co.,
133 F.3d 546, 547-48 (7th Cir. 1998). The
possible grounds for dismissing with prejudice
have not been fully delineated in the case law,
but it has been held that, when the affidavit is
intentionally false, it is within the court's
discretion to dismiss the case with prejudice.
Id.; Chung v. Dushane, 2003 WL 22902561 *3 (N.D.
Ill. Dec.9, 2003), aff'd by unpublished order sub
nom., Chung v. KPMG LLP, 2004 WL 1435198 (7th
Cir. June 24, 2004).

2004 WL 2034084 at *16.

2003, he knew that his property had

Akpulonu TI,

In paragraph 2 of his July 30,

plaintiff stated that, during the previous twelve months,

2003 financial affidavit,

he had

no income from a business, profession, or other self-employment,

nor any income from rent.

Plaintiff indicated that his only

income during that time period was $17 of wages and $700 from an

unspecified other source.

In paragraphs 6 and 7, plaintiff also


his amended complaint and other pleadings are false or his
financial affidavit is false or both are partially false.
Plaintiff claims, and defendants have not disputed, that he owns
the real property on State Street. Plaintiff contends his
ownership of this property was cleared up in 2002 and, in
response to the rule to show cause, contends that he continues to
own this property. In June 2003, plaintiff listed this property
on a financial statement. It is not credible that, less than two
months later, plaintiff innocently omitted this property from the
financial affidavit filed in this court. Even if a dispute
existed as to ownership and/or control of the real property and
any personal property stored on it, plaintiff should have listed
that property on the financial affidavit with a possible notation
that he did not have access to the property or any means of
deriving funds by selling the property or using it as collateral.
Both before and after July 30, 2003, plaintiff has
devoted substantial time to litigation involving his assets.
Moreover, in June 2003, plaintiff acknowledged to a court that he
had interests in real and personal property. The submissions
before this court do not support that plaintiff inadvertently
omitted listing any real or personal property on his July 30,
2003 financial affidavit. It is found that plaintiff
intentionally omitted those items from his financial affidavit.

Because the affidavit was false, plaintiff's case must be



motions to dismiss, the court did its best to understand and
summarize plaintiff's allegations. Where inconsistencies or
imprecision existed, discrepancies and ambiguities were construed
in plaintiff's favor.

Plaintiff contends some facts recited in the ruling on
the motions to dismiss are inconsistent with his actual
allegations. Plaintiff, however, does not point to any material
difference. For example, it had no impact on any ruling that the
court referred to two attorneys as being in the City's
Corporation Counsel office, see id. at *4, instead of, as
plaintiff now alleges, being outside counsel retained to
represent the City. Neither does it make any difference whether
the guard dogs that plaintiff had on his property were purchased
by him as stated in the opinion, id. at *2, or given to him by
neighbors as plaintiff now clarifies. Plaintiff contends it was
inaccurate to state that some of his property was not destroyed
until November 2003, see id. at *16. Plaintiff now clarifies
that it was November 2003 when he first discovered the personal
property was gone. That fact, however, does not go to the merits
of any claim. It could affect the accuracy of his financial
affidavit, but plaintiff does not contend that all his personal
property was destroyed prior to July 30, 2003. The precise date
after July 30 that property may have been destroyed is not

Material. Moreover, it is noteworthy that plaintiff does not


stated that he owned no real estate and no automobiles, boats,
trailers, mobile homes, or other items of personal property with
a then-current market value of more than $1,000. In his amended
complaint, however, plaintiff alleges that he owns real property
that is at the center of his dispute with the City. He also
alleges that, until removed or destroyed by the City or looted
from his property, he had trailers of goods, other vehicles,
tools, and other personal property stored on his real property.
In different pleadings, plaintiff variously valued this property
as being worth from $30,000,000 to $100,000,000.

Plaintiff does not deny that, as of July 2003, as well as
currently, he owned the real property on State Street. He also
continues to allege that millions of dollars of personal property
was stored on the State Street property and that at least some of
it had not yet been destroyed as of July 30, 2003. He does deny
that he had any more income than was listed on the July 2003
financial affidavit. Inconsistent with the allegations of the
amended complaint, plaintiff also now contends that the personal
property did not actually belong to him, but was being stored for
others. Although not clear, plaintiff apparently contends that
he omitted listing the real or personal property on the financial
affidavit because the City had control of it at the time and he

did not think he had to include it on the affidavit. He



dismissed. Because it is found that plaintiff acted with the
intent to deceive, the dismissal will be with prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to
correct misstatements [77-1] is denied. Leave for plaintiff to
proceed in forma pauperis is withdrawn. The Clerk of the Court
is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and against
plaintiff dismissing plaintiff's cause of action with prejudice.
If plaintiff wishes to appeal this order, he must file a Notice
of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit with the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn Street,
20th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604, within thirty (30) days of

the entry of the judgment in this case.

ENTER:

Wii? bed

UNITED’ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: NOVEMBER 40 , 2004


__ Mince Qrder Form (05/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

i ju Or
Nonpuratiee ae | WILLIAM. HART | Stet Soefone
vA
CASE NUMBER 03 C 4546 DATE novemrr 4/) , 2004
CASE UWAKWE AKPULONU v. NATE McGOWAN, et al.
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented_}

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

a) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

Q@) im) Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue____.

(4) o Ruling/Hearing on setfor at

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—set fort

(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——s set for. at
(72) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on_ at

(8) Q [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto___at

(9) Q This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

CUFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1 CFRCP4I(a\(1) C FRCP41(a)(2).

(10)  M@ [Other docket entry] Plaintiffs motion to correct misstatements [77-1] is denied. Leave for plaintiff to
proceed in forma pauperis is withdrawn. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of
defendants and against plaintiff dismissing plaintiff's cause of action with prejudice. If plaintiff wishes to
appeal this order, he must file a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
with the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 South
Dearborn Street, 20th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604, within thirty (30) days of the entry of the judgment in
this case.

(il) of [For further detail, see attached Memorandum Opinion and Order.].

No notices required, advised in
open court. 2

number of notices

No notices required.

o | Notices mailed by judge’s staff DEC 42 ane

Notified counse! by telephone. Jete dockeled

Docketing to mail notices,

v¥ | Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

11/30/2004

date mailed notice

courtroom
ow deputy’s

oP ergs mgm
initials -

central Clerk's Office mailing initials



apparently contends he should not be penalized for any
unintentional misunderstanding regarding the legal situation.

Prior to the case being removed, plaintiff filed a
financial statement in support of his application to proceed as
an indigent. That statement is dated June 11, 2003, less than
two months prior to the one filed after the case was removed. In
that statement, plaintiff stated that he was employed by his
church and expected to earn $1000 during "this year" and earned
$500 during the previous year. More importantly, he stated that
he owned the real estate on State Street and, under "personal
property," listed that he owned: "Tractor, Tow truck, Pick up,
Payloader, cars, trailers, dump truck."

In his emergency motion for temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction that was filed in state court on
June 27, 2003, plaintiff states in 9 30(k) that "[iJ]n the years
1995 thru 2002, plaintiff was without a job." Plaintiff also
notes that he had been involved in six prior lawsuits and spent
substantial time reading cases and law books.

It is beyond credible that a person who had not worked
for the prior eight years would be able to accumulate personal
property worth thirty to one hundred million dollars. It would
also defy belief that others would entrust a person in such dire
financial straits to store millions of dollars of their property

on real estate that he owns. Either plaintiff's allegations in


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UWAKWE AKPULONU,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 03 C 4546

NATE McGOWAN, et al.,

L Defendants. . as
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER _.

BEC © 2 2004

Pro se plaintiff Uwakwe Akpulonu filed this action in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, complaining that the City
of Chicago and one of its employees had improperly seized or
interfered with his use of property. On June 30, 2003, the City
removed the action to federal court, where plaintiff filed a
number of motions and also eventually amended his complaint,
including adding a number of defendants. On July 30, 2003, prior
to filing his amended complaint, plaintiff filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis that was supported by a financial
affidavit. The motion was granted. Subsequently, when ruling on
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the court
noted the apparent discrepancy between representations in the
financial affidavit that plaintiff owned no property and had
minimal income and allegations in the amended complaint that

plaintiff owned real property and had had millions of dollars of


personal property taken or destroyed by defendants. A rule to
show cause was issued requiring plaintiff to show why his case
should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (A) for
having provided a false financial affidavit in support of his
application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Akpulonu v.
McGowan, 2004 WL 2034084 *15-17 (N.D. Tll. Aug. 12, 2004)
("Akpulonu I").

In ruling on the motions to dismiss the amended complaint,
a number of plaintiff's claims were dismissed. Provisionally,
plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint,
but only if his case was not dismissed based on the rule to show
cause. See id. at *15. In addition to the rule to show cause,
pending is plaintiff's motion to correct misstatements. That is
one of a number of motions that essentially seek reconsideration
of the ruling on the motions to dismiss. Plaintiff again contends
that the court misstated plaintiff's factual allegations. As was
noted in the prior ruling, see id. at *2 n.3, plaintiff's
contentions and allegations are difficult to understand with
precision because of improper grammar and punctuation, including
unclear syntax; unclear or imprecise allegations regarding time,
place, or by whom; sentences that run on at length or are
incomplete; the insertion of off-point legal references and legal
jargon, often in the middle of sentences; and the length and

repetitiveness of plaintiff's submissions, In ruling on the