HOWELL v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
Filing
6
ENTRY - The plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2 ] is granted. The assessment of even a partial filing fee is not feasible at this time. The plaintiff's motion for TRO [dkt. no. 3 ] and motion for preliminary injunction [dkt. 4 ] are denied. The complaint is now subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/15/2013. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
UNITED STAT DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JEFFREY E. HOWELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF INDIANA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:13-cv-01792-JMS-DML
Entry Concerning Selected Matters
The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are pending, makes
the following rulings:
1.
The plaintiff=s request to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted. The
assessment of even a partial filing fee is not feasible at this time.
2.
The plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) [dkt. 3] and
motion for preliminary injunction [dkt. 4] have been considered. The plaintiff’s motion for TRO
seeks an order requiring the defendants to safeguard a computer and other property that was
seized at the time of his arrest for a probation violation. The plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
injunction seeks an order prohibiting the defendants from enforcing Ind. Code § 35-42-4-4(c),
the application of which, he contends, has prevented him from obtaining the return of the
property seized during his arrest. To succeed in obtaining preliminary injunctive relief, the
plaintiff must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable
harm if preliminary relief is not granted, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and it is in the
public interest to issue an injunction. United States v. NCR Corp., 688 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir.
2012). Both motions are grounded on the plaintiff’s desire to recover certain property. The Court
need not address all the applicable factors because it takes judicial notice of the decision of the
Indiana Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s
of
property. Howell v. State, No. 47A05-1211-CR-590, 990 N.E.2d 523, 2013
d.
Ct. App. July 15, 2013). Given the plaintiff’s failure to recover the property in the state courts,
his likelihood of success in this Court is essentially nil. The Court further notes that the state
courts determined that the plaintiff was not even the “rightful owner” of the computer at issue.
Moreover, no irreparable harm has been identified if such injunctive relief is not awarded.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for TRO [dkt. no. 3] and motion for preliminary injunction [dkt.
4] are denied.
3.
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. The Court will
direct the further development of any claim which is not dismissed on this basis. The parties will
be notified when this determination has been made.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11/15/2013
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Jeffrey E. Howell
#194392
New Castle Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Rd.
P. O. Box A
New Castle, IN 47362
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?