Fernando Fontanez v. Time Warner Cable

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 22, 2015 *
Decided September 25, 2015
By the Court:
No. 15-2572
FERNANDO FONTANEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TIME WARNER CABLE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 15-C-525
William E. Duffin,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Fernando Fontanez has filed over a dozen suits in the last decade alleging that
various government actors, media outlets, and others have been conspiring to film him
secretly, profit from his likeness, assault and murder him, and plot against the United
States. See, e.g., Fontanez v. Illinois, No. 06 C 6997, 2007 WL 187984, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18,
2007). These frivolous suits, along with threats from Fontanez, led to a two-part order
from the Executive Committee of the Northern District of Illinois. One part instructs the
court’s clerk to return unfiled any papers that Fontanez submits to that court. The other
bans Fontanez from the courthouse without a U.S. Marshal escort.
Fontanez circumvented these restrictions by filing this current suit in the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, naming as defendants Time Warner Cable, CBS News and one of
its news anchors, and his former neighbor. He alleges that the defendants stole his
* The appellees were not served with process in the district court and are not
participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we
have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the
brief and the 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 3 --

No. 15-2572 Page 2
identity by filming him without his permission, profited from his likeness (which, he
boasts, is worth billions of dollars based on stunts that he performed dressed as Batman),
and plotted to manipulate his thoughts and murder him. Fontanez, however, dedicates
most of his complaint and supplemental filings to his larger conspiracy theory: the
defendants helped orchestrate the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and engaged
in other seditious acts against the United States.
The case appropriately was short-lived. A magistrate judge, adjudicating the case
with Fontanez’s consent, granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but then
dismissed his suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Fontanez’s allegations are frivolous as “wholly incredible, delusional,
and borderline malicious,” the judge explained, and suing under statutes without a
private cause of action fails to state a claim.
The district court’s decision to dismiss is correct. Fontanez’s allegations—that the
media is conspiring to film him secretly as part of an ongoing, far-reaching conspiracy to
organize terrorist attacks—are paranoid ravings. The complaint, like his many others,
and this appeal are frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I); Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992).
Fontanez’s practice of frivolous litigation must end. The magistrate judge granted
Fontanez’s request to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, but the judge did
not revoke that status when Fontanez filed his notice of appeal, despite concluding that
the complaint was frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Ordinarily permission to proceed
in forma pauperis before the district court likewise permits the party to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3). But because the district court found that
Fontanez’s suit was frivolous, it should have certified that his appeal was taken in bad
faith and revoked the order authorizing Fontanez to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal. See Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 651–52 (7th Cir. 2000); Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d
1025, 1026–27 (7th Cir. 2000); see also Tolefree v. Cudahy, 49 F.3d 1243, 1244 (7th Cir. 1995)
(“[T]he granting of leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the dismissal of a frivolous
suit is presumptively erroneous and indeed self-contradictory.”).
Although Fontanez received a temporary break, his abuse of the judicial process
shall go no further. Because he has pursued a frivolous appeal, under FED. R. A PP. P. 38,
we order Fontanez to show cause within 14 days why this court should not sanction him
with a fine of $500 plus the fee for filing a complaint in the district court ($400) and the
fee for filing an appeal in this court ($505), the nonpayment of which may lead to a

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 15-2572 Page 3
circuit-wide filing bar under In re City of Chicago, 500 F.3d 582, 585-86 (7th Cir. 2007), and
Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186–87 (7th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --