Campbell v. Trolli Peachie O's et al

Filing 3

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on October 29, 2013, DENYING Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, and DISMISSING without prejudice Plaintiff's 1 Complaint. The Clerk is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of AO 239. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, and either pay the filing fee or file Form AO 239, by December 2, 2013, his case will be terminated. (MRD, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 29 October, 2013 03:54:55 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
JOHNNIE CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
OIL COMPANIES, TROLLI PEACHIE O’S,
and CIGARETTE COMPANIES
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13-cv-4089-SLD-JAG

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Johnnie Campbell’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis,
ECF No. 2. For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 2, is DENIED, and his
Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The information submitted by Plaintiff in his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is
insufficient for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s ability to pay the filing fee. The Clerk is
directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of AO 239. Plaintiff must either pay the filing fee or file
Form AO 239, under penalty of perjury, by December 2, 2013, or his case may be terminated.
But however Plaintiff chooses to respond to the Court’s denial of his Motion to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis, his case will not be permitted to proceed without an amended complaint. The
Court cannot determine what plausible causes of action Plaintiff has against Defendants, or why
they would all be joined in a single suit. As Plaintiff’s claims are now framed in his Complaint,
the Court cannot determine with any confidence whether he has alleged the “minimum degree of
‘plausibility’ required to support federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Ricketts v. Midwest Nat.
Bank, 874 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1989). Therefore, the Court must dismiss his complaint for
1

want of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has until December 2, 2013, to file an
amended complaint, or his case may be terminated.
Under the “substantiality doctrine,” a district court must dismiss a complaint for want of
subject matter jurisdiction if “the constitutional or federal statutory allegations of the complaint
. . . are immaterial to the true thrust of the complaint and thus made solely for the purpose of
obtaining jurisdiction, or . . . are ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’” Id. at 1181–82 (quoting
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681–82 (1946)). A district court is “required to liberally construe the
pro se plaintiff’s pleadings, however inartfully pleaded.” Ricketts, 847 F.2d at 1183 (internal
quotation marks omitted)(collecting cases). Even under this especially solicitous review of
Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, the Court has not been able to make a determination as to the
substantiality of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff should provide a more clear outline of the relief he is
seeking against each Defendant, and the statutory or Constitutional bases for his claims, to allow
the Court to determine whether it can exercise jurisdiction in this case.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2, is DENIED, and his
Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice. Should he choose to proceed, Plaintiff
is advised to amend his Complaint consistent with this Order, and either pay the filing fee or file
Form AO 239, under penalty of perjury, by December 2, 2013, or his case may be terminated.

Entered this 29th day of October, 2013.
s/Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2