« Law - Lawyers' new means to track down clients | Main | Indiana Decisions - Four new Court of Appeals decisions posted today »

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Indiana Decisions - Today's 7th Circuit Rulings

In CHUWAY, CALDEAN M. v. NAT'L ACTION FINAN, Judge Posner, writing for the panel, reverses and remands a decisions from the ND Ill., E.Div., concerning the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A quote: "Our conclusion does not place debt collectors on a razor’s edge, where if they say too little they violate the Act by failing to disclose the amount of the debt they are trying to collect and if they say too much they violate the Act by confusing the consumer."

In another Judge Poser-drafted ruling, CUYLER, GRETCHEN v. USA, the panel reverses the $4 judgment for the plaintiff and dismisses the suit in an appeal by the government of "a suit for wrongful death brought against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which, with limitations that we can ignore, makes the federal government liable for the torts of its employees to the same extent that they would be liable under the law of the place where the tort was committed, in this case Illinois."

MONTGOMERY, JERRY v. DAVIS, CECIL is an appeal from a decision by Judge Allen Sharp, ND Ind. This per curiam opinion begins:

Jerry Montgomery and Larriante Sumbry have long histories of filing frivolous lawsuits in this circuit. For this reason we have sanctioned both: in April 2000 we
fined Montgomery $500 and blocked future filings ... and Sumbry has both struck out under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and been barred from filing civil suits until he pays all outstanding fees and sanctions ... . At issue now is whether additional sanctions are necessary.
After detailing the problem, the panel states:
This must stop. “Every paper filed . . . no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). Although McDonald refers to the Supreme Court’s responsibility to protect its own resources, the principle applies equally to us. * * *

Because both Montgomery and Sumbry have received federal habeas corpus review of their current convictions, they are effectively barred from filing any civil action in the district courts until they settle their debts to the federal judicial system.

We add for the sake of clarity that the prior orders sanctioning Montgomery and Sumbry remain in effect as written; this order does not abrogate any previously imposed sanctions. Additionally, the filing bar imposed by this order applies to any post-judgment motions Montgomery or Sumbry might try to file in any existing case. Finally, because this court disapproves of perpetual orders ... Montgomery and Sumbry may seek modification or rescission of this order, but not before two years have passed.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 30, 2004 01:53 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions