Stanley D. Hayes v. Federal National Mortgage Association

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted March 28, 2016 *
Decided March 30, 2016
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 15‐3408
STANLEY D. HAYES,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant‐Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 15 C 6409
Robert W. Gettleman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Stanley Hayes defaulted on his home mortgage, and in January 2013 an Illinois
court entered a judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Federal National Mortgage
Association. A judicial sale was conducted, and the state court approved the sale in
September 2013. Hayes brought this action in federal court, ostensibly under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, claiming that the Federal National Mortgage Association violated the
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 15‐3408 Page 2
Constitution of the United States by filing the foreclosure action. The district court
dismissed the suit on the defendant’s motion.
The plaintiff’s complaint and appellate brief are familiar. Recently 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); Mimms v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 15‐2454,
2016 WL 234435 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2016) (nonprecedential decision); Sturdivant v. Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 602 F. App’x 351 (7th Cir. 2015) (nonprecedential decision). Each
time we concluded that the complaints did not invoke the district court’s subject‐matter
jurisdiction. The same is true for the plaintiff’s complaint. His claims of constitutional
violations are too insubstantial to set out a basis for federal‐question jurisdiction, and his
lawsuit was properly dismissed.
We note that the plaintiff filed and pursued this appeal after our opinion in Carter
was issued, making this appeal frivolous. Accordingly, we invoke Rule 38 of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure 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.”). Mr. Hayes shall respond within 14 days of the date of this order.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --