Stone v. Indiana State Police et al

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER: This matter is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DENIED AS MOOT as to both 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Kiel Richard Stone and 6 MOTION for Status Hearing by Plaintiff Kiel Richard Stone. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 2/22/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
KIEL RICHARD STONE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
INDIANA STATE POLICE, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

NO. 3:16-cv-762

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis, filed by pro se Plaintiff, Kiel Richard Stone, on
November 9, 2016 (DE #2); and the Motion for Status Hearing, filed
by Plaintiff, Kiel Richard Stone, on February 1, 2017 (DE #6). For
the reasons set forth below, this matter is DISMISSED for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

Additionally, the Motion to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis (DE #2) and the Motion for Status Hearing (DE #6)
are BOTH DENIED AS MOOT.
In this case, Stone sues 11 defendants including, inter alia,
the

Indiana

State

Police,

Home

Land

Security,

the

Central

Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau Investigation, and the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DE #1).

In his complaint, he alleges a series

of issues with these agencies including he has been under 24 hour
surveillance by the agencies for almost 10 years, they tapped his
phones through Sprint and the Dish Network, and Indiana State
Police helicopters have buzzed his house and his parents house. As

the relief requested, he requests all the investigative records and
video and audio recordings pertaining to him.

(DE #1.)

This Court is aware that Stone has filed a number of other
complaints against law enforcement agencies and other companies
allegedly responsible for alleged surveillance of him.

See, e.g.,

3:16-cv-00765-WCL-MGG Stone v. Laurys; 3:16-cv-00771-WCL-MGG Stone
v. Indiana State Department of Health; 3:16-cv-00772-WCL-MGG Stone
v. The Dan Lebtard Show with Stugotz et al.; 3:16-cv-00787-JTM-MGG
Stone v. Sprint; 3:16-cv-00792-JD-MGG Stone v. Dish Network; 3:16cv-00831-JVB-MGG Stone v. Laurys; and 3:16-cv-00847-JTM-MGG Stone
v. Dish Network.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) directs the court to screen
all complaints filed with requests to proceed in forma pauperis,
and to dismiss the case if the court determines that the action is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.

However, the Court must first determine

if it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
Here, Stone’s complaint does not identify any federal law
under

which

brought.

his

alleged

wrongful

surveillance

claims

may

be

Accordingly, there is no federal jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1331.

Additionally, he has not alleged any facts to

establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (requiring plaintiff
and defendants to be citizens of different states and an amount in

2

controversy exceeding $75,000).

The complaint suggests no other

bases for federal jurisdiction.
Though it is usually necessary “to give pro se litigants one
opportunity

to

amend

after

dismissing

a

complaint[,]

that’s

unnecessary where, as here, it is certain from the face of the
complaint

that

unwarranted.”

any

amendment

would

be

futile

or

otherwise

Carpenter v. PNC Bank, Nat. Ass’ n, No. 633 Fed.

Appx. 346, 348 (7th Cir. Feb. 3, 2016) (quotation marks omitted);
see also Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013) and
Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009)
(“[C]ourts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . .
. the amendment would be futile.”).

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint

fails to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face,
and any amendment would be futile.
For the reasons set forth above, this matter is DISMISSED for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Additionally, the Motion to

Proceed in Forma Pauperis (DE #2) and the Motion for Status Hearing
(DE #6) are BOTH DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED: February 22, 2017

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

3