Banks, Larry M. v. People State IL

Seventh Circuit

Banks, Larry M. v. People State IL

258 F. App'x 902

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedDecember 26, 2007

Docket07-3049

StatusUnpublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 258 F. App'x 902 (Banks, Larry M. v. People State IL) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banks, Larry M. v. People State IL, 258 F. App'x 902 (7th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

In November 2006 Larry Banks was indicted in Illinois state court on fourteen different charges, including four counts of attempted first-degree murder. While being held at the Elgin Mental Health Center awaiting trial, Banks filed what he styled as a petition for a writ of mandamus, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 1651, in federal district court. He argued only that the state prosecution violates his rights under the Illinois constitution, and that accordingly the federal court should intervene and stop the ongoing state proceedings. The district court allowed Banks to proceed informa pauperis but then dismissed the action sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court reasoned that it did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against state officials for violations of state law. Our review is de novo, see Hoskins v. Lenear, 395 F.3d 372, 375 (7th Cir.2005), and we agree that the district court lacked “jurisdiction to issue a mandamus against state officials for violating their duties under state law,” Coniston Corp. v. Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461, 469 (7th Cir.1988); see also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir.2001).

The district court warned Banks that if a “prisoner has had a total of three federal cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious or failing to state a claim, he may not file suit in federal court without prepaying the filing fee unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Martin v. United States, 96 F.3d 853, 854 (7th Cir.1996) (holding that Prisoner Litigation Reform Act applies to civil mandamus actions). Despite this warning, Banks brought this appeal. Banks incurred one of his allotted three “strikes” for his peti *903 tion in the district court, and this appeal counts as a second.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

In November 2006 Larry Banks was indicted in Illinois state court on fourteen different charges, including four counts of attempted first-degree murder. While being held at the Elgin Mental Health Center awaiting trial, Banks filed what he styled as a petition for a writ of mandamus, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 1651, in federal district court. He argued only that the state prosecution violates his rights under the Illinois constitution, and that accordingly the federal court should intervene and stop the ongoing state proceedings. The district court allowed Banks to proceed informa pauperis but then dismissed the action sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court reasoned that it did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against state officials for violations of state law. Our review is de novo, see Hoskins v. Lenear, 395 F.3d 372, 375 (7th Cir.2005), and we agree that the district court lacked “jurisdiction to issue a mandamus against state officials for violating their duties under state law,” Coniston Corp. v. Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461, 469 (7th Cir.1988); see also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir.2001).

The district court warned Banks that if a “prisoner has had a total of three federal cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious or failing to state a claim, he may not file suit in federal court without prepaying the filing fee unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Martin v. United States, 96 F.3d 853, 854 (7th Cir.1996) (holding that Prisoner Litigation Reform Act applies to civil mandamus actions). Despite this warning, Banks brought this appeal. Banks incurred one of his allotted three “strikes” for his peti *903 tion in the district court, and this appeal counts as a second.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 F. App'x 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-larry-m-v-people-state-il-ca7-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack