Martin v. US Postal Inspection Service
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Plaintiff Daniel F Martin. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 USC §1915e(2)(B)(I) and (ii). Signed by Judge William C Lee on 8/1/11. (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DANIEL F. MARTIN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE, )
)
Defendant.
)
CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-219 WL
OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Daniel Martin submitted a civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1361, against the United States Postal Inspection Service. He alleges that he owned real
estate and that a private attorney falsified documents for the purpose of getting an
order for a tax deed on Martin’s real estate. He asks the Court to order the Defendant to
show cause why “procuring falsified court documents and using the United States Mail
to transport them from one place to another for the purpose of acquiring property
belonging to [the Plaintiff] would not be an act of United States Mail Fraud” (DE 1 at 4).
The Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) a court must sua sponte dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis at any
time if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
A claim may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. A complaint should be dismissed
as frivolous when “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1989). See also Flick v. Blevins, 887 F.2d 778, 780 (7th Cir.
1989). A claim based on an “indisputably meritless legal theory” is frivolous. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 32; Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). A claim is also
frivolous when no reasonable person could suppose it to have any merit. Lee v. Clinton,
209 F.3d. 1025 (7th Cir. 2000). Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Accordingly, pro se complaints are
liberally construed. Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001).
The Plaintiff asserts that between 2006 and 2008, Attorney Jan Orlosky used
fraudulent documents to impair his interest in his real estate. The Plaintiff complained
to the United States Postal Inspection Service, but was told by someone who “claimed
to be with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service . . . that his case had been investigated, and
it was found that Jan Orlosky had not committed the offense of United States Mail
Fraud” (DE 1 at 4).
The code section the Plaintiff cites as the basis for this complaint, 28 U.S.C. §
1361, which deals with government property or contracts, reads as follows:
Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any
property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or
any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for
the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to
commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:
If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of
$1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten
years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does
not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment
for not more than one year, or both.
2
The Plaintiff alleges damage to his interest in private real estate, which he
believes constituted mail fraud. Section 1361, the criminal statute he bases his complaint
on, deals with damage to government property or contracts. Because the events the
Plaintiff complains of do not deal with government property or contracts, he states no
claim upon which relief can be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Accordingly, the Court
will deny the Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and will dismiss the complaint.
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (DE 2), and DISMISSES this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915e(2)(B)(I) and (ii).
SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 1, 2011
s/William C. Lee
William C. Lee, Judge
United States District Court
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?