Guillen v. Leavell etal

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER The court DISMISSES the federal claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE and REMANDS the State claims to the Lake Superior Court. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 2/25/13. cc: Clerk, Lake Superior Court(kjp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
OSCAR GUILLEN, SR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MR. LEAVELL AND MS. LETO,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 2:13-CV-070

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the complaint filed by
Oscar Guillen, Sr., in the Lake Superior Court on December 19,
2012, which was removed to this Court by the defendants on February
22, 2013. (DE #1). For the reasons set forth below, the court
DISMISSES the federal claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE and REMANDS the
State claims to the Lake Superior Court.

DISCUSSION
Oscar Guillen, Sr., a pro se prisoner, cannot litigate in this
Court because he is a restricted filer. On October 29, 2009, in
Guillen v. Hoppe, 2:09-cv-345 (N.D. Ind. filed October 19, 2009),
the Clerk was ordered “to return, unfiled, any papers filed in any
case by or on behalf of Oscar Guillen, Sr. (except for a notice of
appeal or unless filed in a criminal or habeas corpus proceeding)
until he has paid in full all outstanding fees and sanctions in all
civil actions in any federal court . . ..” That sanction was
imposed because Guillen is an abusive litigator who had filed nine

meritless cases or appeals and then attempted to bamboozle the
court in an attempt to evade his obligation to pre-pay the filing
fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The restriction is still in
place because he owes this court $3,465 in unpaid filing fees.
The defendants removed this case from State court because it
included a federal claim. It is their right to do so. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441. However, because Guillen is unable to file anything in this
court, it is impossible for him litigate this case here. Therefore,
the federal claims will be dismissed without prejudice so that the
remaining State claims can be remanded back to State court.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES the
federal claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE and REMANDS the State claims to
the Lake Superior Court.

DATED: February 25, 2013

RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court

2