Henderson v. Indiana State of et al
OPINION AND ORDER: The court DENIES her motion for an emergency hearing 3 and motion to amend her complaint and remove her case to federal court 4 , AFFORDS Ms. Henderson leave to amend her complaint by 12/09/2022, and TAKES UNDER ADVISMENT her motion to proceed in forma pauperis 2 . The court cautions Ms. Henderson that failure to comply with this deadline could result in the dismissal of her case. Signed by Judge Damon R Leichty on 11/18/2022. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (jdb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MARILYN V. HENDERSON,
CAUSE NO. 3:22-CV-837 DRL-MGG
STATE OF INDIANA et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER
Marilyn Henderson, proceeding pro se, sues the State of Indiana and two LaPorte Superior
Court employees, Kathy Camby and Heather Stevens. Her federal complaint is a mere copy of her
proposed amended complaint in a state cause of action in the LaPorte Superior Court (46D01-2206CT-816). She filed a motion for an emergency hearing and a motion for leave to amend her complaint
and remove her case to federal court. Her amended motion for an emergency hearing in part elucidates
her grievances against Ms. Camby and Ms. Stevens stemming from her interactions with them while
filing documents in her state case.1 Ms. Henderson alleges Ms. Camby and Ms. Stevens discriminated
against her based on her race while filing her state cause of action in violation of the due process clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [ECF 4]. The court construes her
amended motion for an emergency hearing as her federal complaint. She moves to proceed in forma
pauperis [ECF 2].
The court must first determine whether her complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Though the court must construe her complaint liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus,
Her proposed amended complaint is once more the complaint for her state cause of action.
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), it has “ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits
spontaneously,” Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003).
Ms. Henderson’s complaint must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local
rules. Rule 8 requires a “short and plain statement of the claim” with allegations that are “simple,
concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (d). The statement must contain enough factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a plausible claim, not a speculative one. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A complaint must be presented with
intelligibility sufficient for a court or opposing party to understand whether a valid claim is alleged and
if so what it is. Wade v. Hopper, 993 F.2d 1246, 1249 (7th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted); see also Jennings
v. Emry, 910 F.2d 1434, 1436 (7th Cir. 1990) (stating that a complaint “must be presented with clarity
sufficient to avoid requiring a district court or opposing party to forever sift through its pages in
search” of what it is the plaintiff asserts).
It is at times hard to understand what Ms. Henderson’s federal complaint truly concerns. At
one point, she says Ms. Camby and Ms. Stevens prevented her from filing her state complaint but later
describes the procedural history of that cause of action, which has a status hearing scheduled for
November 4, 2022, by her own account. This state court docket contains a complaint and a proposed
amended complaint filed by Ms. Henderson.2 She says they violated her rights by “holding her
summons back,” but service was issued after the court granted her motion for a fee waiver. She says
on one occasion they denied making her copies of files she requested and on another they made the
copies double-sided which she did not want, but those aren’t matters of constitutional concern. Last,
she alleges Ms. Camby and Ms. Stevens didn’t inform her of how to receive information about her
case. None of these alleged grievances amount to a constitutional deprivation of due process and Ms.
The court can take judicial notice of matters of public record, including public court documents. See Orgone
Cap. III, LLC v. Daubenspeck, 912 F.3d 1039, 1044 (7th Cir. 2019).
Henderson hasn’t alleged any facts—outside of pointing to LaPorte County’s history of
discrimination—making it plausible that Ms. Camby and Ms. Stevens’ actions or inaction was based
on Ms. Henderson’s race.
Ms. Henderson also requests that her state case (46D01-2206-CT-816) be removed to federal
court. Ms. Henderson is the plaintiff in the underlying case. The removal statute only authorizes a
state-court “defendant or defendants” to remove cases to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a); 14C
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3730 (Rev. 4th ed. 2022)
(plaintiffs cannot remove cases to federal court). Removal is improper here for that reason.
A complaint containing a “short and plain statement” of her claims in this federal action, not
her state court action, is necessary to proceed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provide that “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 3. This is “the first step in the action.” Id., Advisory Committee Notes, 1937 Adoption.
Although pro se litigants are not held to the same standards as attorneys, Kyle v. Patterson, 196 F.3d 695,
697 (7th Cir. 1999), they are not exempt from the rules of civil procedure, Jones v. Phipps, 39 F.3d 158,
163 (7th Cir. 1994). The requirement that all plaintiffs must file a complaint is a fundamental rule in
our legal system. Without a complaint, the court cannot determine the exact causes of action that Ms.
Henderson intends to bring against each defendant. She is required to associate specific defendants
with specific claims, so that defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against them and so
they can properly respond. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Given that she is proceeding pro se, the court will grant Ms. Henderson another opportunity
and let her file an amended complaint. See Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir.
2018). She should provide as many facts as to what has transpired involving Ms. Camby and Ms.
Stevens. There must be sufficient facts pleaded to allow the court and the defendant to understand
the “gravamen” of her complaint.” See Doherty v. City of Chi., 75 F.3d 318, 326 (7th Cir. 1996). She is
encouraged to use the court’s civil complaint form available online and ensure compliance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules.
Accordingly, the court DENIES her motion for an emergency hearing [ECF 3] and motion
to amend her complaint and remove her case to federal court [ECF 4], AFFORDS Ms. Henderson
leave to amend her complaint by December 9, 2022, and TAKES UNDER ADVISMENT her motion
to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF 2]. The court cautions Ms. Henderson that failure to comply with
this deadline could result in the dismissal of her case.
November 18, 2022
s/ Damon R. Leichty
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?