Walton v. Pence et al
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice and DENIES #4 MOTION to Amend Complaint by Plaintiff Marilyn Darcel Walton; DENIES #5 MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Marilyn Darcel Walton; and DENIES AS MOOT #6 MOTION to Amend list of attachments by Plaintiff Marilyn Darcel Walton. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 7/6/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
MARILYN DARCEL WALTON,
MICHAEL RICHARD PENCE, et al.,)
CAUSE NO: 2:17-CV-170
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the “Motion to Amend
Complaint” (DE #4) and the Petition to Proceed Without Pre-Payment
of Fees and Costs (DE #5) filed by Plaintiff, Marilyn Darcel
Walton, on May 16, 2017.
For the reasons set forth below, the
Court DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice and DENIES the motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Also before the Court is
a “Motion to amend list of attachments” (DE #6) filed by Marilyn
Darcel Walton on May 16, 2017.
The motion to amend list of
attachments is DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff, Marilyn Darcel Walton (“Walton”), initiated this
case by filing a pro se complaint (DE #1) and a petition to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (DE #2) on April 17 2017.
complaint, Walton lists seventeen defendants including but not
limited to Vice President Michael Pence, Former President Barack
Obama, a former CEO of U.S. Steel, two educational institutions,
a car dealership, a security company, a real estate company, an
apartment management service, two hospitals, and an attorney. (DE
The allegations contained in Walton’s complaint have already
been summarized by this Court and need not be repeated here.
fantastical and delusional.
While skeptical that Walton would be
able to amend her complaint to state a claim, she was nonetheless
given an opportunity to correct the complaint’s shortcomings.
Court granted her until May 16, 2017 to file an amended complaint
and either pay the filing fee or refile her in forma pauperis
On May 16, 2017, Walton filed the instant motion to amend
complaint. Despite the title, the motion is construed by the Court
as an amended complaint because the Court’s previous order made
clear that leave to file an amended complaint had been granted and
because the motion itself suggests that the filing was intended to
be an amended complaint.
(DE #4, “This complaint is brought
pursuant to: Amendment XIII of the U.S. Const.”).
filed another motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
administrative costs (e.g. filing fee) of the lawsuit.
U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
When presented with an IFP application, the district
sufficient merit; and (2) whether the plaintiff’s poverty level
justifies IFP status.
See Denton, 504 U.S. at 27; Smith-Bey v.
Hosp. Adm’r, 841 F.2d 751, 757 (7th Cir. 1988).
court must dismiss the complaint if (a) the allegation of poverty
is untrue, (b) the action is frivolous or malicious, (c) the action
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (d)
the action seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2).
An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
A claim that “no reasonable person could suppose to have any merit”
is considered frivolous.
Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th
To determine whether the suit states a claim upon
which relief can be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii),
a court applies the same standard as it would to a motion to
dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Dewalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 611 (7th Cir. 2000).
a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 (b)(6), a court must accept all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true and view them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff.
Luevano v. WalMart Stores, Inc.,
722 F.3d 1014, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013).
To survive dismissal, a
“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
A plaintiff “must plead some facts
that suggest a right to relief that is beyond the ‘speculative
Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823, 832 (7th Cir.
“This means that the complaint must contain allegations
plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with) an entitlement
Lavalais v. Village of Melrose Park, 734 F.3d 629,
632-33 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation
In this case, while Walton’s poverty level justifies IFP
status, the suit cannot proceed.
Despite this Court’s skepticism
that Walton could amend her complaint in a manner that complied
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, she was granted an
opportunity to do so and given clear instructions regarding what
The amended complaint is as rambling and incoherent
as the earlier complaint, and the allegations remain fantastical
Whether considered alone or together with the
earlier complaint, no factual basis for any legally discernable
claim is ascertainable. At this juncture, dismissal with prejudice
Walton has demonstrated she either cannot or will
not produce a complaint that complies with the federal rules of
The motion to amend list of attachments is DENIED AS MOOT.
Walton’s most recent pay information and copies of her recent FOIA
requests are not relevant to this Court’s determination that her
amended complaint must be dismissed.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES the
complaint with prejudice and DENIES the motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis.
DATED: July 6, 2017
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
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?