Lehman v. Bennett et al

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES the Petition 2 and DISMISSES the Complaint 1 as moot, with prejudice. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 8/8/2016. (lhc)(cc: Plaintiff)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
JOSEPH C. LEHMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 3:16-CV-458-JVB-CAN

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE
INDIANA ELECTORAL COMMISSION,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
A.

Background
On February 19, 2014, the Indiana Supreme Court suspended Joseph C. Lehman from the

practice of law, effective April 3, 2014. In re Lehman, No. 20S00-1507-DI-431, 2016 WL
3997601, at *1 (Ind. July 21, 2016).
Lehman, pro se, filed a complaint on July 13, 2016, asking this Court to order the Indiana
Electoral Commission to place his name on the upcoming general election ballot as the
Democratic candidate for Elkhart Circuit Court judge. (Compl., DE 1.) Lehman also asked to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Pet., DE 2.) One week later, on July 21, 2016, the Indiana Supreme
Court disbarred Lehman. In re Lehman, 2016 WL 3997601, at *2.

B.

Law
District courts may screen complaints, including those filed by pro se non-prisoners

seeking leave to proceed without pre-payment of fees and costs. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778,
783 (7th Cir. 1999). District courts may screen complaints prior to service on defendants, and

must dismiss complaints that are frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the
claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). The
court must view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept the factual
allegations as true, and resolve doubts in his favor. See Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex. Hosp., 425
U.S. 738, 740 (1976); see also Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). The court must
construe a pro se plaintiff’s allegations liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972).

C.

Discussion
Lehman wants to be placed on the ballot as the Democratic candidate for Elkhart Circuit

Court judge. But, to borrow from General Sherman, if nominated Lehman cannot run, and if
elected he cannot serve.
Disbarred by the Indiana Supreme Court, Lehman is ineligible to be the Elkhart Circuit
Court judge. Article 7, § 7 of the Indiana Constitution provides that a Circuit judge “shall have
been duly admitted to practice law by the Supreme Court of Indiana . . . .”

2

Since Lehman is disbarred and therefore cannot serve in the position for which he seeks
election, his complaint is moot. Indeed, the Indiana Supreme Court had suspended him from the
practice of law in Indiana even before he filed this complaint.
Accordingly, Lehman can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle
him to relief.

D.

Conclusion
Therefore, the Court DENIES the Petition (DE 2) and DISMISSES the Complaint (DE 1)

as moot, with prejudice.
SO ORDERED on August 8, 2016.

s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3