Delois Banister v. U.S. Bank National Association, 21-1031

Background

In July 2015, an Illinois state court entered a judgment foreclosing Delois Banister’s mortgage and her house was sold in a sheriff’s sale.
Banister filed five federal suits challenging the foreclosure and defendants’ conduct; several prior federal cases were dismissed (or voluntarily dismissed) and judges warned Rooker–Feldman barred her claims.
In this, her fifth federal complaint, Banister alleged bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, sought $20 million, and asked the court to set aside the state foreclosure judgment and sheriff’s sale.
The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine and referred Banister to the court’s Executive Committee for possible restricted-filer status.
Banister appealed, generally claiming unfairness and bias but failing to meaningfully contest the Rooker–Feldman ground.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, held the referral non-appealable here, noted several other pleading defects, and ordered Banister to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for a frivolous appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court has jurisdiction or Rooker–Feldman bars the action	Banister sought to vacate the state foreclosure and obtain damages for alleged bank fraud	Defendants argued the complaint attacks a state-court judgment, so Rooker–Feldman bars federal relief	Rooker–Feldman applies: federal court lacks jurisdiction because granting relief would require invalidating the state judgment
Whether damages under a criminal statute (18 U.S.C. § 1344) can support federal relief	Banister invoked § 1344 to seek civil damages	Defendants argued § 1344 is a criminal statute and cannot supply a civil cause of action that would bypass Rooker–Feldman	Court held § 1344 cannot furnish a civil claim here; damages would necessarily invalidate the state judgment and are barred
Whether the referral to the district court Executive Committee is appealable	Banister contested the referral as unfair	Defendants implicitly argued the referral is not an appealable order here	Court held the referral is not an appealable final order; Banister could have appealed the Executive Committee’s eventual restricted-filer order
Whether the appeal is frivolous and sanctions are warranted	Banister continued to press the appeal despite prior dismissals and warnings	Defendants sought costs/fees and argued the appeal is frivolous and repetitive	Court ordered Banister to show cause within 14 days why sanctions (appellees’ costs and fees) should not be imposed, given repetitive, frivolous litigation

Key Cases Cited

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (establishes that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state-court judgments)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (limits lower federal courts from reviewing state bar admission and related state-court judgments)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (clarifies scope of Rooker–Feldman and distinguishes preclusion principles)
Mains v. Citibank, 852 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2017) (applies Rooker–Feldman to foreclosure-related federal claims)
Klein v. O’Brien, 884 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2018) (pro se appellants must engage the district court’s reasons on appeal)
Georgakis v. Illinois State Univ., 722 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2013) (duplicative, harassing suits warrant dismissal)
Hayes v. City of Chicago, 670 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 2012) (issue preclusion bars relitigation of claims decided in earlier federal suits)
In re Chapman, 328 F.3d 903 (7th Cir. 2003) (procedural rules on appealing institutional filing restrictions)