Applewhite v. Indiana Child Support Bureau et al

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the Opinion and Order, the Clerk is ORDERED to DISMISS the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Additionally, the application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 2/20/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
JERMAINE APPLEWHITE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
INDIANA CHILD SUPPORT
BUREAU, et al.,
Defendants.

CAUSE NO. 2:18-CV-52

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the: (1) civil complaint
filed by Plaintiff, Jermaine Applewhite, on February 5, 2018 (DE
#1); and (2) the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, filed by
Plaintiff, Jermaine Applewhite, on February 5, 2018 (DE #2).

For

the reasons set forth below, the Clerk is ORDERED to DISMISS the
complaint

WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

1915A.

Additionally, the application to proceed in forma pauperis (DE #2)
is DENIED.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff,

Jermaine

Applewhite,

makes

the

following

allegations in his complaint:
The plaintiff Jermaine Applewhite went to a
paternity
hearing
on
10/29/2013
where
the
defendants Thomas B. Felix, Indiana Child Support,
and Lake County knowingly used intimidation and
misleading conduct to persuade the plaintiff

Jermaine Applewhite to sign a voluntary order of
support. This happen at the lake superior court
juvenile division, iv-d. When this happen i [sic.]
was forced to live in shambles and could not get a
place to live because this affected my credit and
the current living situation I was in. I could not
pay my rent on time so i [sic.] was forced to leave
my apartment and live with my significant other. I
was not given due process and they deprived me
under the color of law.
This my claim and fact
that i [sic.] present to the court.
(Compl., DE #1 at 2.)
DISCUSSION
Under the federal in forma pauperis statute, an indigent party
may commence an action in federal court, without prepayment of
costs and fees, upon submission of an affidavit asserting an
inability “to pay such costs or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). Here, Applewhite asserts that he earns approximately
$2,500 per month, has no other valuable property or investments,
and provides $800 a month in child support.

(DE #2.)

Based on

this income information, the financial eligibility for in forma
pauperis status is satisfied.
The inquiry does not end there, however.

The Court has an

obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints,
and must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. Dismissal under the in
forma pauperis statute is an exercise of the court’s discretion.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33-34 (1992).
2

In determining

whether the complaint states a claim, the court applies the same
standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d

621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006).

To survive dismissal under federal

pleading standards,
[the] 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. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted).
Thus, a “plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper
that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that
something has happened to her that might be redressed by the law.”
Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010)
(emphasis in original).
Applewhite’s complaint alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
He claims that he was deprived of due process during a paternity
hearing on October 29, 2013.

It is well settled that Indiana has

a “two-year statute of limitations, which is applicable to all
causes of action brought in Indiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
Snodderly v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892,
894 (7th Cir. 2001). Therefore, his claim is time barred and fails
to state a proper claim upon which relief may be granted.

CONCLUSION
3

For the reasons set forth below, the Clerk is ORDERED to
DISMISS the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.

Additionally, the application to proceed in forma pauperis

(DE #2) is DENIED.

DATED: February 20, 2018

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

4