JEFFREY MIMMS and GLORIA MIMMS v. U.s. Bank, N.a.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 19, 2016 *
Decided January 20, 2016
Before
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 15-2454
JEFFREY MIMMS and GLORIA MIMMS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
U.S. BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 15 CV 3369
Charles R. Norgle,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jeffrey and Gloria Mimms defaulted on their home mortgage, and in May 2014 an
Illinois court entered a judgment of foreclosure. A judicial sale was conducted in March
2015, but the following month, before the state court had approved that sale, the
Mimmses brought this action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They essentially
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. A PP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 15-2454 Page 2
claim that the defendants, all private financial institutions, violated the Constitution of
the United States by filing the foreclosure action. The district court dismissed the suit.
The plaintiffs’ complaint and their appellate briefs are familiar. Twice previously
we have reviewed complaints and briefs identical in both wording and typeface (except
for details about the homeowners’ addresses and mortgages). See Carter v. Homeward
Residential, Inc., 794 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2015); Sturdivant v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 602
F. App’x 351, 351 (7th Cir. 2015). Both times we concluded that the complaints did not
invoke the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The same is true for the plaintiffs’
complaint in this case, and their lawsuit was properly dismissed.
We note that the plaintiffs filed and pursued this appeal after our opinion in
Carter was issued, making this appeal frivolous. Accordingly, we invoke Rule 38 and
issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for filing a frivolous
appeal. See FED. R. A PP. P. 38 (“If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is
frivolous, it may, after . . . notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond,
award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”). The Mimmses shall
respond within 14 days of the date of this order.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --