KETNER v. HOOSIER TRUCK & TRAILER SERVICES et al

Filing 20

ENTRY - The renewed request to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 19 ] is DENIED as unnecessary because the court granted the earlier request to proceed in forma pauperis on March 21, 2013. The renewed motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt. 16 ] is DENIED for the reasons explained in the Entry of April 17, 2013. The plaintiff's motion for court order to secure access to law library [Dkt. 18 ] is DENIED because this lawsuit is neither a challenge to the lawfulness of the plaintiff& #039;s confinement nor to the conditions of his confinement, meaning that he has no right to access to the courts in connection with this case. Plaintiff shall have a further period of time in this case, through May 24, 2013, in which to either wi thdraw the complaint or show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As he responds to directions in both this case and in No. 2:13-cv-127-WTL-MJD, the plaintiff should be precise as to which case he submits materials for filing. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/1/2013. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DANIEL J. KETNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOOSIER TRUCK & TRAILER
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-0440-TWP-TAB

Entry Discussing Selected Matters
I.
The renewed request to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 19] is denied as unnecessary
because the court granted the earlier request to proceed in forma pauperis on March 21, 2013.
II.
The renewed motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt. 16] is denied for the reasons
explained in the Entry of April 17, 2013.
III.
The plaintiff’s motion for court order to secure access to law library [Dkt. 18] is denied
because this lawsuit is neither a challenge to the lawfulness of the plaintiff’s confinement nor to
the conditions of his confinement, meaning that he has no right to access to the courts in
connection with this case. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-55 (1996), confirms that the
fundamental right of access to the courts is not a guarantee to prisoners of law libraries or legal
assistants per se, but rather the conferral of a capability--"the capability of bringing contemplated
challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement before the courts."

IV.
The plaintiff was notified that only claims arising under state law were discerned in his
complaint and he was given a period of time in which to either withdraw the complaint or show
cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rather
than respond to these directions, he has filed the repetitive motions noted above and noted in the
Entry of April 24, 2013.
The plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, has submitted both this case and No.
2:13-cv-127-WTL-MJD, and may be confused about what claims he is asserting and what
judicial forum is available for that purpose. He shall have a further period of time in this case,
through May 24, 2013, in which to either withdraw the complaint or show cause why the
complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As he responds to
directions in both this case and in No. 2:13-cv-127-WTL-MJD, the plaintiff should be precise as
to which case he submits materials for filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

05/01/2013
Date: __________________

Distribution:
Daniel J. Ketner
DOC #199397
Putnamville Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1946 West U.S. 40
Greencastle, IN 46135-9275

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