SINGLETON v. IMPD OFFICER et al

Filing 4

ENTRY - Directs clerk to issue and serve process on Officer Cameron. Process shall not issue at this time to the remaining defendants, those being the 911 Dispatch Agency and the City of Indianapolis. Instead, the plaintiff shall have through September 28, 2010, in which to either withdraw the claims against these defendants or show cause why those claims should not be dismissed as legally insufficient (S.E.) cm. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/8/2010.(CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA DAVID ALLEN SINGLETON, JR., Plaintiff, vs. IMPD OFFICER CHERYL CAMERON, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:10-cv-1038-SEB-TAB

Entry Concerning Selected Matters The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are pending, makes the following rulings: 1. Plaintiff Singleton seeks damages from Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) Officer Cheryl Cameron, from the municipal 911 Dispatch Agency, and from the City of Indianapolis. Singleton characterizes his claims, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as for entrapment, false arrest, and wrongful imprisonment. Although Singleton has paid the filing fee for this case, "[d]istrict judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense. This is so even when the plaintiff has paid all fees for filing and service . . . . " Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 762 (7th Cir. 2003)(citing Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999)). 2. The action will proceed against Officer Cameron in her individual capacity. The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c), to issue and serve process on this defendant in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process in this case shall consist of the complaint, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. 3. Process shall not issue at this time to the remaining defendants, those being the 911 Dispatch Agency and the City of Indianapolis. Instead, the plaintiff shall have through September 28, 2010, in which to either withdraw the claims against these defendants or show cause why those claims should not be dismissed as legally insufficient. The apparent legal insufficiency of the claim against the City of Indianapolis is that no municipal policy or custom of making unlawful arrests or entrapping arrestees has

been alleged. The apparent legal insufficiency of the claim against the 911 Dispatch Agency is the same as that identifier to the City of Indianapolis, as well as that this agency is not a "person" subject to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Best v. City of Portland, 554 F.3d 698, fn* (7th Cir. 2009). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

09/08/2010
_______________________________ SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: DAVID ALLEN SINGLETON, JR. 5 N. Temple St. Apt. #3 Indianapolis, IN 46201 Officer Cheryl Cameron Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department 50 N. Alabama St. Indianapolis, IN 46204