OINGER-VANOVER v. CITY OF SHELBYVILLE et al
ENTRY DISMISSING COMPLAINT - Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Ms. Oinger-Vanover shall have through November 2, 2016, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 10/13/2016. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
CITY OF SHELBYVILLE,
SHELBYVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
OTHER UNKNOWN OFFICERS,
Entry Dismissing Complaint
I. Filing Fee
The plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt 2) is granted. The assessment of
even an initial partial filing fee is not feasible at this time.
Plaitniff Cynthia Oinger-Vanover filed this civil action against the City of Shelbyville, the
Shelbyville Police Department and unknown officers. The plaintiff alleges that on August 7, 2013,
she was raped. She reported the rape to the Indiana State Police and the Shelbyville Police
Department. The officers did not investigate her claims. Instead, the plaintiff conducted her own
investigation and threatened law enforcement with a lawsuit. In response, the police department
retaliated by harassing her, by falsely arresting her, illegally detaining her, and pressing false
charges. The plaintiff was convicted of these charges. The plaintiff seeks 100 million dollars,
punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
District courts have an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints
before service on the defendants, and must dismiss the 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. Dismissal under the in forma pauperis statute is an exercise of the Court’s discretion.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992). In determining whether the complaint states a claim,
the Court applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To
survive dismissal under federal pleading standards,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Thus, a “plaintiff must do better than putting a few
words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has
happened to her that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403
(7th Cir.2010) (emphasis in original).
As presented, Ms. Oinger-Vanover’s complaint contains only bare legal conclusions and
lacks sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. For example, factual allegations are
necessary to support a claim of false arrest and illegal detention. In addition, the plaintiff is notified
that the statute of limitations for a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is two-years. Thus,
any claim which accrued before October 3, 2014, is barred by the statute of limitations.
Therefore, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
IV. Further Proceedings
Ms. Oinger-Vanover shall have through November 2, 2016, in which to show cause why
Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722
F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Without at least an opportunity to amend or to respond to an
order to show cause, an IFP applicant’s case could be tossed out of court without giving the
applicant any timely notice or opportunity to be heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave
IT IS SO ORDERED.
713 Center St.
Shelbyville, IN 46176
LARRY J. McKINNEY, 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?