HOSKINS v. TENTH AND MERIDIAN

Filing 4

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Dismissing complaint, warning plaintiff to stop filing frivolous claims and directing entry of final judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/11/2015 (Copy of order in pick up tray for the plaintiff) (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
HOMER E. HOSKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TENTH and MERIDIAN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-0368-TWP-MJD

Entry Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Complaint,
Warning 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 form is
blank and not signed. The plaintiff continues to owe the $400.00 filing fee.
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, to the extent decipherable, that “I was at the Tenth and Meridian
inside Building and was asked to leave by a black man I was waiting for police because a man was
asking [unintelligible].” The defendant is Tenth and Meridian. The plaintiff seeks $1 trillion dollars
and ownership of the building.
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 African-

American 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. This action is frivolous. This
complaint does not allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, nor is there any discernible federal
jurisdiction for the plaintiff’s claim. A building located at the corner Tenth and Meridian is not
identifiable nor alleged to be a state actor, and the claim is not based on any federal law. Even the
damages sought is frivolous.
This complaint warrants no further judicial time, and it is one of at least 35 cases and
counting that the plaintiff has filed, mostly against private citizens, within the past month. 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 soon issue appropriate sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/11/2015

Distribution:
Homer E. Hoskins
For Pick Up In Clerk’s Office, Room 105 Courthouse