Tillman v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

Background

Delaneo-Nathaniel: Tillman-Sr., representing himself, sued JPMorgan Chase Bank NA over a car-loan agreement. He claimed that Chase violated the U.S. Constitution by trying to collect money owed under the loan, arguing that the obligation was created without lawful tender and violated constitutional restrictions on contracts requiring payment in something other than gold or silver coin. He also asserted common-law claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent conversion, and requested an accounting and other injunctive and equitable relief.

Earlier ruling and appeal

Tillman applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court reviewed the complaint before service under the statute governing such applications. It dismissed the constitutional claim with prejudice as frivolous, dismissed the common-law claims without prejudice after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and denied the initial application as moot. Tillman then filed a notice of appeal and asked to proceed without paying the appeal fees.

Ruling

A person seeking to proceed without paying fees on appeal must first ask the district court and identify the issues intended for appeal. The court may not allow that status if it certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith, meaning the issues on appeal are factually or legally frivolous. Judge Laura M. Provinzino found that Tillman’s appeal was not taken in good faith. The court stated that the constitutional claim was frivolous, that Tillman offered no non-frivolous basis for appealing that ruling, and that he provided no valid basis for challenging the court’s decision not to hear the common-law claims. The court also noted that Tillman referred to a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim that he had not raised in his complaint. The court therefore denied Tillman’s Application to Proceed IFP on Appeal.