Wilkinson, Thomas G. v. Wells Fargo, No. 07-2398 (7th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted March 12, 2008* Decided March 12, 2008 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge No. 07 2398 THOMAS G. WILKINSON, Plaintiff Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. v. No. 06 C 1288 WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, N.A., et al., Defendants Appellees. William C. Griesbach, Judge. O R D E R Thomas Wilkinson filed a sprawling 200 page pro se complaint in district court, naming numerous banks and their law firms as defendants, and citing various federal and state civil and criminal statutes, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 1692p. The court could not, however, glean the substance of his claims from his complaint and ordered Wilkinson to amend his pleading for clarity. A second * After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2). No. 07 2398 Page 2 complaint, shorn of various exhibits and motions but otherwise identical, was no better. Accordingly, the court dismissed the bulk of the complaint as unintelligible. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). The court held, however, that to the extent that Wilkinson had alleged violations of the FDCPA by any creditor banks, he had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the FDCPA governs debt collectors and not creditors (with a few inapplicable exceptions). See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a; FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6); Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726, 729 (7th Cir. 2004); Schlosser v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 323 F.3d 534, 536 (7th Cir. 2003). The court dismissed that portion of the complaint with prejudice. Following a hearing, the court also concluded that the true purpose of Wilkinson s suit was to harass the defendants and therefore sanctioned him $1,000. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b). We review a district court s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. Tricontinental Indus., Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 475 F.3d 824, 833 (7th Cir. 2007). In doing so, we accept any well pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, see id., mindful of the need to construe pro se complaints liberally, see Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 681, 687 (7th Cir. 2006). We review a dismissal under Rule 8(a), meanwhile, for abuse of discretion. Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818, 820 (7th Cir. 2001). Finally, we review a district court s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions for abuse of discretion as well. Cuna Mut. Ins. Socʹy v. Office & Profʹl Employees Intʹl Union, Local 39, 443 F.3d 556, 560 (7th Cir. 2006). Wilkinson s brief in this court poses a similar challenge; it contains significant portions of the original complaint and does not, for the most part, assert grounds for error. We read Wilkinson s brief to contain one principal argument, that the district court was wrong to dismiss his FDCPA claim. Wilkinson seems to believe that because various bank creditors sought to collect on a debt, those entities became debt collectors for purposes of the FDCPA. The district court properly rejected this argument. See Schlosser, 323 F.3d at 536. The remainder of his complaint is indeed unintelligible and therefore was properly dismissed. See United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003); Davis, 269 F.3d at 820. Moreover, because Wilkinson submitted an identical complaint after the court ordered him to clarify the original pleading, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a modest sanction for disobedience. See Cuna Mut. Ins. Socʹy, 443 F.3d at 560. AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
