HOSKINS v. CHANNEL 6 NEWS
Filing
6
ENTRY BANNING PLAINTIFF FROM FILING ANY ADDITIONAL CIVIL PAPERS - Sanctions are imposed against Homer E. Hoskins in the amount of $1,200.00 for filing frivolous cases and motions. Unless and until Mr. Hoskins has fully paid the $1200.00 s anction imposed against him, the Clerk is directed to not accept and/or return unfiled any papers Mr. Hoskins attempts to file, with the exception of filings in any criminal case in which he is a defendant and any petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release from unlawful custody. This sanction and filing restriction against Mr. Homer E. Hoskins shall remain in effect until he pays the $1200.00 sanction. He also continues to owe all past due filing fees. Plaintiff may pick up a copy of this Entry in Clerk's Office, Room 105. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 3/4/2015.(TMD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
HOMER E. HOSKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHANNEL 6 NEWS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:15-cv-0304-RLY-DKL
ENTRY BANNING PLAINTIFF FROM FILING ANY ADDITIONAL CIVIL PAPERS
I.
Filing Sanction and Restriction
“Every paper filed…no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the
institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are
allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” Montgomery v. Davis, 362 F.3d 956, 957
(7th Cir. 2004) (quoting In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989)).
This case is frivolous and deserves no further judicial time. It is one of 45 cases, and
counting, that plaintiff Hoskins has filed, mostly against private citizens, within the past couple of
weeks. Not a single case filed by Mr. Hoskins in this time period has stated a viable federal claim.
It appears that Mr. Hoskins files a federal lawsuit against essentially every person or entity with
whom he comes into contact. He has sued individuals with no last name. He sued the President
because he has “been wrong on many issues.” He sued the Vice President because “as Vice
President, [sic] job has been wrong.” He sued “All Nation [sic] of the World,” alleging that he
wants “everyone to go back to the country they came from.” Hoskins v. All Nation Abroad, 1:15cv-337-JMS-MJD. Like this case brought against Channel 6 News, he has sued several television
stations for not covering a story he called in. He sued “Farrakhan” for making a “boring” speech.
He sued “American Idol” alleging that he is the American Idol, seeking 10 trillion dollars. In every
case he seeks fantastical amounts of money and often “ownership” of whatever company he sues.
In many of his cases, the plaintiff has filed blank motions, motions that court staff must process
but which seek absolutely no relief. Mr. Hoskins has also filed a raft of frivolous notices of appeal,
even in cases in which no judgment has been entered.
The Court has informed him that he is abusing the Court’s limited resources and that if he
fails to stop filing frivolous claims and claims that lack federal jurisdiction, he will be sanctioned.
See e.g., Hoskins v. Biden, 1:15-cv-00299-JMS-DKL (S.D.Ind. Feb. 26, 2015); Hoskins v.
Farrakhan, 1:15-cv-0296-WTL-TAB (S.D.Ind. Feb. 26, 2015). Such warnings have fallen on deaf
ears.
In no case has Mr. Hoskins paid the filing fee, although he reports some income and his
motions to proceed in forma pauperis have been denied as not supported. For each case filed, he
now owes the $400.00 filing fee. He has incurred thousands of dollars in appellate fees as well,
just in the past two days.
The Court’s docket reflects the litany of frivolous, malicious cases asserting no federal
basis for jurisdiction. These cases represent countless hours of Court staff time that could be spent
on cases which state viable claims.
The Court has before it hundreds of pending matters which properly invoke its jurisdiction
and seek resolution of valid controversies. Mr. Hoskins’ abusive patterns must come to an end.
Accordingly, the Court is compelled to no longer receive, file, docket, or review his papers. This
Entry directs the Clerk how to proceed.
Pursuant to this Court’s inherent authority to prevent the abuse of the legal process, protect
the limited resources of the judicial system, and promote the interests of justice, the Court now
imposes a sanction against Homer E. Hoskins of $1200.00 for filing frivolous cases and motions,
to be paid to the Clerk of the Court.
Unless and until Mr. Hoskins has fully paid the $1200.00 sanction imposed against
him, the Clerk is directed to not accept and/or return unfiled any papers Mr. Hoskins
attempts to file, with the exception of filings in any criminal case in which he is a defendant
and any petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release from unlawful custody. This
sanction and filing restriction against Mr. Homer E. Hoskins shall remain in effect until he
pays the $1200.00 sanction. He also continues to owe all past due filing fees.
This restriction is in effect for the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana. Mr. Hoskins may seek modification or rescission of this Entry but not before two years
have passed from the date of issuance.
II.
Distribution of Entry
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that “245 E. Market Street, Indianapolis, IN,”
the address the plaintiff has provided, is not a residence. The plaintiff has not provided a valid
address to the Court so this Entry and Judgment will not be placed in the mail. As he often does,
he may pick up a copy of this Entry in the Clerk's Office, Room 105 of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
Date:_____________
3/04/2015
RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
Homer E. Hoskins, For Pick Up In Clerk's Office, Room 105 Courthouse
NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.
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?