Brown v. White
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by 1 copies of summons forms and 1 copies of USM-285 forms filed by Maurice C Brown., Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). ***Civil Case Terminated. (cc: Brown). Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/18/15. (mlc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
MAURICE C. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JESSE WHITE d/b/a Illinois Secretary
of State,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 2:15-CV-196-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] against Defendant Jesse
White in his official capacity as the Illinois Secretary of State, along with a Petition to Proceed
Without Pre-Payment of Fees and Costs [ECF No. 4]. In assessing whether the Plaintiff may
proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must look to the sufficiency of the Complaint to determine
whether it can be construed as stating a claim for which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). District courts have the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to screen
complaints even before service of the complaint on the defendant and must dismiss the
complaint if it fails to state a claim. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999); see also
Butler v. City of Milwaukee, 295 Fed. Appx. 838, 839–40 (7th Cir. 2008) (stating that it was
“wholly within the district court’s authority to dismiss [on its own motion] for failure to state a
claim”).
Although the Complaint is somewhat difficult to follow, the Plaintiff appears to be
seeking money damages—described by the Plaintiff as “punitive damages”—due to the
suspension of his driver’s license and certain incidents arising therefrom.1 (Compl. 8.) By
seeking money damages against an Illinois state official in his official capacity, the Plaintiff is
effectively seeking money damages against the State of Illinois. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.
159, 169 (1985). Such a claim cannot be maintained under the Eleventh Amendment. Id.
(“Absent waiver by the State or valid congressional override, the Eleventh Amendment bars a
damages action against a State in federal court.”) For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES
the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [ECF No. 4] and
DISMISSES the Complaint [ECF No. 1] WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
SO ORDERED on December 18, 2015.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
1
The Court notes that the Plaintiff has filed at least eight separate lawsuits in federal district court
over the last two years (including the present lawsuit). See Brown v. Bunich (2:14-cv-334); Brown v. 21st
Century Mortg. Corp. (2:15-cv-118); Brown v. BP Amoco Corp. (2:15-cv-179); Brown v. Indiana (2:15cv-200); Brown v. Dart (2:15-cv-208); Brown v. Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (2:15-cv-361); Brown v.
Alvarez (2:15-cv-370).
2
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?