Tucker v. Williams et al
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Plaintiff Jason W Tucker. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 USC §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff CAUTIONED if he continues to file meritless claims, he may be fined, sanctioned or restricted. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 12/12/11. (cer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JASON W. TUCKER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JSUTIN FAW, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-339
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on a vague complaint and an
improperly completed in forma pauperis petition1 submitted by Jason
W. Tucker. For the reasons set forth below, the court
DENIES the in
forma pauperis petition (DE # 2), DISMISSES this case pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and CAUTIONS Jason W. Tucker that if
he continues to file meritless claims, he may be fined, sanctioned
or restricted.
BACKGROUND
This is the fourth time in fourteen months that Jason W.
Tucker, a pro se plaintiff, has sued the Grant County Sheriff and
members of the Marion City Police Department. Each lawsuit involved
separate
and unrelated arrests. The complaints in the three
previous lawsuits did not state a claim. Neither does this one.
1
It is unnecessary to address the improperly completed in forma pauperis
petition because the complaint does not state a claim.
Here, Tucker alleges that the police violated his Fourth
Amendment rights when they stopped him and that they lacked
probable cause to arrest him. The police detained Tucker in the
backyard of a stranger at night after they had seen him running
down an alley with a flashlight looking into garages and lurking in
backyards. The police arrested him for disorderly conduct when he
would not stop disturbing the neighbors by screaming profanities
after they asked him to be quiet.
DISCUSSION
“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a
pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). Nevertheless, “[n]otwithstanding any filing
fee, or any p ortion thereof, that may have been paid, the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that .
. . (B) the action . . . (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___, ___; 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949; 173 L.
Ed. 2d 868, 884 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
-2-
Based on this complaint and its attachments, it is not
plausible that the police violated Tucker’s Fourth Amendment rights
when they stopped him.
The officer making a Terry stop must be able to
articulate something more than an inchoate and
unparticularized suspicion or hunch. The Fourth Amendment
requires some minimal level of objective justification
for making the stop. That level of suspicion is
considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a
preponderance of the evidence. We have held that probable
cause means a fair probabi
lity that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found, and the level of
suspicion required for a Terry stop is obviously less
demanding than for probable cause.
Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard
than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable
suspicion can be established with information that is
different in quantity or content than that required to
establish probable cause, but also in the sense that
reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is
less reliable than that required to show probable cause.
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329-330 (1990) (brackets, ellipsis,
quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the police had
reasonable suspicion that Tucker was committing a crime when they
saw him running down an alley with a flashlight looking into
garages and lurking in backyards. Thus, they did not violate his
Fourth Amendment rights when they briefly detained him while they
questioned the homeowner about whether he had permission to be in
the backyard.
So too, based on this complaint and its attachments, it is not
plausible that the police arrested Tucker for disorderly conduct
without probable cause.
-3-
A law enforcement officer has probable cause to arrest
when the facts and circumstances within his knowledge and
of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are
sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that
the suspect had committed or was committing an offense.
We evaluate probable cause not on the facts as an
omniscient observer would perceive them but on the facts
as they would have appeared to a reasonable person in the
position of the arresting officer--seeing what he saw,
hearing what he heard.
Booker v. Ward, 94 F.3d 1052, 1057-58 (7th Cir. 1996) (quotation
marks, brackets, citations, and emphasis omitted). Here, Tucker was
screaming profanities in front of (and perhaps at) the police
officers. They observed neighbors peering from their windows late
at night. They asked Tucker to quiet down. When he did not, they
arrested him for the disorderly conduct they were personally
observing.
This complaint does not state a claim. This is the fourth time
in fourteen months that Tucker has filed a meritless complaint
attempting to sue the Grant County Sheriff and Marion City police
officers. Though sanctions are not warranted in this instance,
Tucker is cautioned that if he persists in filing meritless claims,
he may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the courtDENIES the in forma
pauperis petition (DE # 2),
DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and CAUTIONS Jason W. Tucker that if he
-4-
continues to file meritless claims, he may be fined, sanctioned or
restricted.
DATED: December 12, 2011
/s/ Rudy Lozano, Judge
United State District Court
-5-
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?