Yorktallman v. Westlake Financial Services

Background

Tamara Renee Yorktallman sued Westlake Financial Services. The opinion says her relationship with Westlake was unclear, but, as best as the court could tell, she owed Westlake money. Her complaint appeared to argue that Westlake had violated federal law or breached a contract and that she therefore did not owe Westlake anything.

Yorktallman filed an amended application to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court described the complaint’s allegations as incomprehensible and noted references to “cestui que trusts.” Based on those references and the complaint’s theory that Yorktallman could divide her identity into different facets and transfer debts or other burdens between them, the court construed the pleading as presenting sovereign-citizen-type claims.

Legal standard and analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court must dismiss an action at any time if it determines that the action is frivolous. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, including when it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory.

The court concluded that nothing in Yorktallman’s complaint made her claims more plausible than the sovereign-citizen claims that courts in the District of Minnesota commonly reject as frivolous. The court also found that Yorktallman had no obvious way to remedy the complaint’s problems.

Ruling

Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that Yorktallman’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice, as frivolous, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “With prejudice” means the complaint may not be refiled in the same form. The court separately denied as moot Yorktallman’s amended application to proceed without prepaying fees because the action was being dismissed in its entirety. The order directed that judgment be entered.