HOSKINS v. JEFF AT MIDTOWN
Filing
5
Entry Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Complaint, and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2 ] is denied because although it is difficult to read, it appears that the plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the filing fee for this action. The plaintiff's blank motion [dkt. 3 ] is denied because it seeks no ruling from the Court. The plaintiff's allegations fall well short of stating a legal claim, and this action must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall issue. Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/27/2015.(MGG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
HOMER E. HOSKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFF AT MIDTOWN,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:15-cv-00263-TWP-MJD
Entry Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Complaint,
and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
I. Motions
The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is denied because although it
is difficult to read, it appears that the plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the filing fee for this
action.
The plaintiff’s blank motion [dkt. 3] is denied because it seeks no ruling from the Court.
II. Dismissal of the Complaint
The complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This
statute requires the Court to dismiss a complaint or claim within a complaint if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
The plaintiff sues “Jeff at Midtown,” asserting as follows:
Although difficult to read, it appears that Jeff is the plaintiff’s care coordinator at Midtown. 1 The
plaintiff appears to allege that Jeff refused to give the plaintiff a ride, but that Jeff would give other
patients a ride, and that Jeff called the plaintiff manic. The plaintiff seeks relief of ten million
dollars.
The plaintiff’s allegations fall well short of stating a legal claim, and this action must
therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A complaint that is wholly insubstantial does not
invoke the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); African-American Slave Descendants Litig., 471 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir.
2006). “When it becomes clear that a suit filed in forma pauperis is irrational, the district court is
required to dismiss it, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).” Ezike v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.,
2009 WL 247838, *3 (7th Cir. 2009). That is the case here; this case is frivolous and deserves no
further judicial time. See Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000); Gladney v. Pendleton
Correctional Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 2002). Judgment consistent with this Entry
shall issue.
1
The Court notes that Midtown provides mental health services.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 2/27/2015
Distribution:
HOMER E. HOSKINS
245 E. Market St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
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?