Filing 3

ENTRY DENIES plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES action for failure to state a viable claim. (S.E.) cm . Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 4/24/06. (MAC, )

Download PDF
NOTTINGHAM v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al Doc. 3 Case 1:06-cv-00637-SEB-VSS Document 3 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA JOHN NOTTINGHAM, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:06-cv-637-SEB-VSS ENTRY I. The clerk shall send the plaintiff a filed copy of the complaint and a filed copy of the plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. II. The plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and this action is dismissed. The reasons for this disposition are the following: 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), a court shall dismiss a case at any time if the court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 2. The claim against the City of Indianapolis is identical to the claim found legally insufficient in No. 1:06-cv-575-SEB-VSS and is dismissed for the same reason. As to the claims against the remaining defendants, National City Bank, Lee Slade, and Kevin Dubbink, there is no allegation that these defendants acted under "color of state law" (such as would be required to support a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983), there is no other stated or discernible basis for the existence of a "federal question" (such as would be required to support this court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331), and there is no allegation of diversity of citizenship or of the required minimum $75,000.00 in controversy (such as would be required to support the exercise of this court's diversity jurisdiction). 3. In short, the complaint fails to state a viable claim against any defendant, and hence must be dismissed at this early point regardless of the plaintiff's financial circumstances. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 04/24/2006 NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION. _______________________________ SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

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?