LAWRENCE v. RICHARDSON et al
Filing
6
ENTRY - Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings; The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. no. 3] is granted. The plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Two Dollars and Zero Cents ($2.00). He shall have through September 10, 2013, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court.Claims against defendants identified only as "John Does" and "Jane Does" are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.The motion for summonses to be served by the U.S. Marshal [dkt. no. 4] is denied as unnecessary. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 8/19/2013. Copies Mailed(CKM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:13-cv-01250-SEB-DML
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TRACY L. LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RON RICHARDSON Madison County
Sheriff, SHELLY Madison County Jail Nurse,
TYLER JUGG Madison County Jail Officer,
R. PERKINS Madison County Jail Officer,
JOHN DOES, JANE DOES,
Defendants.
Entry Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I.
The plaintiff=s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. no. 3] is granted. The plaintiff
is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Two Dollars and Zero Cents ($2.00). He shall have
through September 10, 2013, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court.
II.
The complaint is now subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This
statute directs that the court dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint which “(1) is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. Claims against
defendants identified only as “John Does” and “Jane Does” are dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The inclusion of unknown or unidentified
individuals as defendants is problematic because “it is pointless to include [an] anonymous
defendant [ ] in federal court; this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation back
under Fed. R .Civ. P. 15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff.” Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d
1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted). See also, e.g., Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue
Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997) (“The use of fictitious names is
disfavored, and the judge has an independent duty to determine whether exceptional
circumstances justify such a departure from the normal method of proceeding in federal
courts.”); K.F.P. v. Dane County, 110 F.3d 516, 519 (7th Cir. 1997) (“The use of fictitious
names for parties, a practice generally frowned upon, is left within the discretion of the district
court.”)(internal citations omitted).
III.
The motion for summonses to be served by the U.S. Marshal [dkt. no. 4] is denied as
unnecessary. To avoid unnecessary expenses, it is this Court’s longstanding process to request
that defendants waive service of a summons, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Accordingly, the clerk is
designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue and serve process on the defendants in
the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Process shall consist of the complaint, applicable
forms and this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
08/19/2013
Date: __________________
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
Christopher Carson Myers
CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
cmyers@myers-law.com
Ilene M. Smith
CHRISTOPHER MYERS & ASSOCIATES
ismith@myers-law.com
Officer R. Perkins
Madison County Jail
720 Central Avenue
Anderson, IN 46016
Officer Tyler Jugg
Madison County Jail
720 Central Avenue
Anderson, IN 46016
Jail Nurse Shelly
Madison County Jail
720 Central Avenue
Anderson, IN 46016
Sheriff Ron Richardson
Madison County Jail
720 Central Avenue
Anderson, IN 46016
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?