STARR v. GELLER

Filing 4

ENTRY and Order Directing Dismissal of Action - The plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt 2 ) is granted. Starr's complaint is unintelligible, rendering it subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/17/2011. (TRG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

RICHARD ALAN STARR,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVEN B. GELLER,
Defendant.

No. 1:11-cv-0598-TWP-MJD

Entry and Order Directing Dismissal of Action
I.
The plaintiff=s request to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt 2) is granted.
II.
Because the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, his
complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This statute
requires that the complaint be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Id. Pursuant to this statute, "[a] complaint is subject to dismissal for failure
to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show that plaintiff is not entitled to
relief." Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007).
Plaintiff Richard Starr seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
unspecified injunctive relief from defendant Steven B. Geller. Starr alleges:

[P]laintiffs vindication of his Civil Rights that have left him (male victim)
unvindicated for violations of gender bias motivated crimes of violence.
...
A Aclass based@ invidiously discriminatory animus is behind the
conspiritors [sic] action as the court records reflect. That the actions were
clearly a product of bias and prejudice of the court.

Starr then lists without elaboration various docket numbers and states: AThese Judges
through their private conduct in conspiracy with lawyer defendants caused the court to
effectuate Plaintiff to >compulsory involuntary servitude.=@
The sufficiency of a complaint is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a). Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009). “A
complaint must always . . . allege ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’“ Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont, Ill., 520 F.3d 797, 803
(7th Cir. 2008)(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
It has been noted that "dismissal of a complaint on the ground that it is
unintelligible is unexceptionable." Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818, 820 (7th Cir.
2001). Starr=s complaint is unintelligible, rendering it subject to dismissal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
III.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
06/17/2011
Date:

Distribution:
Richard Alan Starr
P.O. Box 538
Frankton, IN 46044

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana