Obi v. Cook County (June 10, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Ifeoma Delliane Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. (2)
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
June 10, 2026
Disposition
Motion Granted
Majority
Virginia M. Kendall (J.) (unanimous Court)
IFEOMA DELLIANE CHINEDU OBI, Plaintiff, v. COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS; MICHAEL IAN BENDER;..., Slip Copy(2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1678232Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division,EASTERN DIVISION.IFEOMA DELLIANECHINEDU OBI, Plaintiff,v.COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS; MICHAELIAN BENDER; CAESAR & BENDER,LLP; LEVING LAW GROUP; ERICHARTIG; LESLIE POOLE; COOK COUNTYCOURT – CIRCUIT COURT 2; JUDGEMATTHEW LINKS; JUDGE ZELLER,and ASSOCIATED PARTIES Defendants.No. 25 C 3096|Filed: 06/10/2026Editor's Note: This document contains discussion ofunverified citations, likely generated by AI tools used by aparty or counsel. These citations are not attributable to theCourt. The unverified citations have been preserved as part ofthe official record, but links are unavailable.OPINION AND ORDERVirginia M. Kendall United States District Judge*1 Plaintiff Ifeoma Delliane Chinedu Obi filed a noticeof appeal regarding the Court's November 18, 2025, Orderdismissing Obi's complaint without prejudice (Dkt. 88)(“MTD Order”); the Court's entry of judgment (Dkt. 89); andthe Court's April 9, 2026, Order striking Obi's motion to alteror amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) for violating LocalRule 7.1 and sanctioning Obi $5,000 for violating Rule 11(Dkt. 97) (“Sanctions Order”). (Dkt. 100). Obi now seeksleave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. (Dkts. 105,107). For the reasons below, the Court grants Obi's motion toproceed on appeal in forma pauperis. (Id.)BACKGROUNDThe Court dismissed Obi's claims without prejudice in itsMTD Order. (Dkt. 88). The Court entered judgment that sameday. (Dkt. 89). Obi did not seek leave to file an amendedcomplaint; instead, she filed a motion to alter or amend theCourt's judgment under Rule 59(e). (Dkt. 90). The Courtstruck that motion for violating Local Rule 7.1 and sanctionedher $5,000 for violating Rule 11. (Dkt. 97). About one monthlater, Obi filed her notice of appeal. (Dkt. 100) (appealingDkts. 88, 97).STATEMENTA party “who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must ...attach an affidavit that ... shows in the detail prescribed byForm 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability topay[.]” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Obi's stated income is $31,200 ($1,200 biweekly aftermandatory deductions). (Dkt. 105 at 1). Obi's monthlyexpenses are $1,286 (utilities $156, food $350, transportation$140, work expenses $150, and child support $490). (Dkt.107 at 2). This means her take home pay per year is $15,768.1This is below the 2026 federal poverty line of $15,960 for anindividual and $21,640 for a family of two.2 Obi has shownthat she cannot pay the filing fees. Neitzke v. Williams, 490U.S. 319, 324 (1989); Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990, 992 (7thCir. 1980); see Burton v. HMS Host, 2023 WL 12039544, at*1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2023); Smith v. Respiro, LLC, No. 24 C11732, Dkt. 48 at 1-2 (N.D. Ill. May 1, 2026).A party seeking to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis mustshow an entitlement to redress and state the issues that theyintend to present on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(B)-(C); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “In cases governed only bysection 1915, the district court is required to screen the casebefore granting the privilege to proceed without prepaymentof fees.... If it concludes (among other things) that the actionor appeal is frivolous or malicious, the court must dismiss thecase.” United States v. Durham, 922 F.3d 845, 846 (7th Cir.2019) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Lucien v. Roegner, 682F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982) (a court must “deny leave toappeal in forma pauperis” when Plaintiff's “claims presentedare legally frivolous”).
IFEOMA DELLIANE CHINEDU OBI, Plaintiff, v. COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS; MICHAEL IAN BENDER;..., Slip Copy(2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2*2 That said, “neither § 1915(a) nor Rule 24(a) permits acourt to carve an issue out of a case while granting leave toappeal without prepayment of costs.” Dixon v. Pitchford, 843F.2d 268, 270 (7th Cir. 1988). “The question for the districtcourt is whether the appeal as a whole—and not the appeal ofparticular issues—is taken in good faith. If at least one of thearguments that the petitioner seeks to make on appeal is notfrivolous, then the appeal is ‘taken in good faith’ for purposesof 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Rule 24(a).” Charles AlanWright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure,§ 3970.1 (5th ed. 2026) (citing Dixon, 843 F.2d at 270). “If ...the applicant ... presents any issue for the court's considerationnot clearly frivolous, leave to proceed in forma pauperis mustbe allowed.” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 446(1962).The Court has taken a generous read of Obi's notice of appeal.Even so, she fails to state the issues she seeks to appeal fromthe Court's Sanctions Order and presents several frivolouspositions. (Dkt. 100); see Washington v. Vasallo, 2026 WL44659, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2026); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). The Court addresses each below.Obi seeks leave to appeal the Court's Sanctions Order. (Dkt.100 at 1). Yet she fails to present any issues from that Order—she only presents issues from the Court's MTD Order.(Compare Dkt. 100 with Dkts. 97). Obi also confoundinglyasserts that her Rule 59(e) motion to amend (Dkt. 90)—the motion the Court struck in Sanctions Order—“hasbeen pending for more than eighty-five days without [a]ruling.” (Dkt. 100 at 4). Obi continues to submit AIhallucinated arguments and cases. On page 7, she asserts that“The district court acknowledged on page 7 that ‘a federalcourt may hear a claim alleging a state court judgment is voidfor lack of jurisdiction.’ It cited Andrade v. Arby Concessions,88 F.4th 1014 (7th Cir. 2023).” (Dkt. 100 at 7). The entirety ofthat assertion—the quote, case, and “acknowledgement”—ismade up. (Compare id. with Dkt. 88). Obi is a repeat offenderon this front. She has continually filed briefs generated by AIthat are riddled with fabricated cases and arguments. (Dkt.97 at 3) (ruling that “[t]he severity of Plaintiff's Rule 11ongoing and repeated violations warrants sanctions”). Shealso continues to ignore basic orders and court rules (suchas page limit and spacing requirements). (Id. at 1-2).3 Obiclaims that the Court dismissed one of her positions relying on“a single authority” and “without engagement with bindingprecedent.” (Dkt. 100 at 8). That is false. The Court cites to,relies on, and engages with, multiple binding cases. (Compareid. with Dkt. 88 at 6-8). Obi re-raises her frivolous positionthat “Docket 14 [i]s the Operative Complaint.” (Dkt. 100 at10-11, 4). The Court already explained to Obi in its SanctionsOrder that her “operative complaint is Docket 46”; again, theCourt has extended “significant leeway” to Obi by acceptingher “ ‘Supplemental Complaint’ (Dkt. 50) along with heroperative complaint (Dkt. 46).” (Dkt. 97 at 3) (citing Dkt. 88at 10) (considering and dismissing both Dkts. 46 and 50).Against this backdrop, Obi's appeal suffers from many issues.Viewed as a whole, however, the Court cannot conclude thatit was filed in bad faith. Obi filed a 15-page single-spacednotice of appeal that identifies the orders Obi is appealingfrom, provided a statement of six issues for review on appeal,and presented legal argument on each issue. (Dkt. 100). Truethat there are several frivolous positions in Obi's filing. It isalso concerning that Obi continues to improperly rely on AI,submit fabricated law and facts, and ignore basic Court rules.All considered, Obi has nevertheless carried her low burden;the Court finds that arguments I, II, IV-VI are not frivolousnor brought in bad faith. Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626,632 (7th Cir. 2000) (“to determine that an appeal is in goodfaith, a court need only find that a reasonable person couldsuppose that the appeal has some merit”); Lee v. Clinton, 209F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000) (“to sue in bad faith meansmerely to sue on the basis of a frivolous claim, which is tosay a claim that no reasonable person could suppose to haveany merit”). Because Obi has presented “any issue for thecourt's consideration not clearly frivolous, leave to proceedin forma pauperis must be allowed.” Coppedge, 369 U.S. at446; Dixon, 843 F.2d at 270; see also Knox v. Butler, 2021WL 50489, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2021) (“[A]lthough someof the issues raised in Plaintiff's second Notice of Appeal mayqualify as frivolous, the Court cannot certify that the appealas a whole is not taken in good faith. As such, Plaintiff willbe permitted to proceed IFP.”); Knowlin v. Raemisch, 2009WL 1259026, at *2 (W.D. Wis. May 5, 2009) (“Although Iwould normally certify this portion of the appeal, standingalone, as not taken in good faith, the Court of Appeals forthe Seventh Circuit instructs that the power to deny leave toproceed in forma pauperis if the court certifies that the appealis not taken in good faith deals with the case as a whole ratherthan individual issues.”).CONCLUSION*3 For these reasons, the Court grants Obi's motion. (Dkts105, 107). See Tolefree v. Cudahy, 49 F.3d 1243, 1244 (7thCir. 1995).
IFEOMA DELLIANE CHINEDU OBI, Plaintiff, v. COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS; MICHAEL IAN BENDER;..., Slip Copy(2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 1678232Footnotes1Obi is also under Court order to pay the $5,000 sanction by September 28, 2026. (Dkt. 99); (Dkt. 107 at 2).2Federal Poverty level (FPL), HealthCare.gov (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-fpl/).3The Court again reminds Obi that she remains bound by Rule 11 even on appeal. Obi, if you continue to submit falsecases, statements, or quotes (whether generated by AI or not), you may be subject to even more serious sanctions ontop of the $5,000 you are currently ordered to pay.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access