HOSKINS v. NATION OF ISLAM

Filing 4

ENTRY - Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Complaint, Directing Plaintiff to Stop Filing Frivolous Claims, and Directing Entry of Final Judgment; This complaint warrants no further judicial time. The action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff is abusing the Court's limited resources and if he fails to stop filing frivolous claims and claims that lack federal jurisdiction, the Court will issue appropriate sanctions. Such sanctions cou ld include the imposition of filing restrictions. The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis dkt. 2 is denied because the information contained in the motion is illegible or incomplete. The plaintiff continues to owe the $400.00 filing fee. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/27/2015. Copy Mailed. (CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
HOMER E. HOSKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NATION OF ISLAM,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-00305-TWP-MJD

Entry Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Complaint,
Directing Plaintiff to Stop Filing Frivolous Claims, and
Directing Entry of Final Judgment
I.

Motion to proceed in forma pauperis

The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is denied because the
information contained in the motion is illegible or incomplete. The plaintiff continues to owe the
$400.00 filing fee. Similarly, the blank motion attached to the complaint [dkt. 1-1] is denied
because it does not reflect that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
II.

Screening of 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 complaint alleges that the defendant, the Nation of Islam wasted plaintiff Homer
Hoskins’ time. In support he states:

The relief he seeks is three trillion dollars.
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); In re AfricanAmerican Slave Descendants Litigation, 471 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2006) (“A frivolous federal
law claim cannot successfully invoke federal jurisdiction.”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) an action that is frivolous may be dismissed. That is the case here. The complaint
does not allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, nor is there any discernible federal
jurisdiction for the plaintiff’s claim. Wasting someone’s time does not create a federal cause of
action. Even the relief sought is frivolous.
This complaint warrants no further judicial time. It is one of 28 cases and counting that the
plaintiff has filed, mostly against private citizens, within the past week. The action is dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
The plaintiff is abusing the Court’s limited resources and if he fails to stop filing frivolous
claims and claims that lack federal jurisdiction, the Court will issue appropriate sanctions. Such
sanctions could include the imposition of filing restrictions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 2/27/2015
Distribution:
Homer E. Hoskins, 254 E. Market Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204