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)

Download PDF
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?