Case Name: Prince FORYOH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald BANAS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-03
Citations: 231 F. App'x 484
Docket Number: No. 06-3416
Parties: Prince FORYOH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald BANAS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 484–485

Head Matter:
Prince FORYOH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald BANAS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-3416.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted March 29, 2007.
Decided April 3, 2007.
Prince E. Foryoh, Chicago, IL, pro se.
Mara S. Georges, Office of the Corporation Counsel Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Opinion:
Order
After he was convicted of harassment by telephone, see 720 ILCS 135/1-1, Prince Foryoh filed this suit under 42 U.S.C.1983 against the officer who arrested him, contending that the officer lacked probable cause and employed excessive force. The district court initially permitted Foryoh to proceed in forma pauperis but later revoked that permission and dismissed the suit under 28 U.S.C.1915(e)(2)(A) after concluding that Foryoh's financial affidavit was false.
In another of Foryoh's suits, his mother gave testimony to the effect that she provides about 90% of his support—including meals, car, college tuition, textbooks, and housing. Foryoh concedes that his mother has provided (and continues to provide) financial support but insists that she is extending loans rather than making gifts. That is not how his mother characterized things, but like the district judge we need not resolve this intra-familial dispute. Foryoh did not report the value of these "loans" on his affidavit and other filings. In response to a question whether he had received more than $200 from any source in the preceding year, Foryoh neglected to mention his mother's assistance. So his application for leave to proceed informa pauperis had a material omission and may well have been perjurious.
Foryoh must pay the full filing and docket fees for both the complaint in the district court and the appeal taken to this court. Moreover, by attempting to deceive the district court he has forfeited the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in any case until he had paid, in full, all outstanding fees and costs for all of his lawsuits. (There are several others.) See Campbell v. Clarke, 481 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2007). Finally, for the reasons given in Campbell, we will enter an order under Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir.1995), to remain in force until all fees and costs, from all of Foryoh's federal suits, have been paid. In any application to this court to have the Mack order lifted, Foryoh must provide (under oath) a complete list of all of his federal suits and proof that all of his financial obligations with respect to these suits have been met.