KETTERBURG v. LAYTON

Filing 4

Entry Denying In Forma Pauperis Status, Discussing Complaint, And Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause - The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is denied without prejudice because the motion ontains no information relati ng to the plaintiff's income, resources, and expenses. He shall have through November 28, 2016, in which to either pay the $400.00 filing fee to the Clerk of the Court, or renew his request to proceed in forma pauperis with supporting in formation. The plaintiff shall have through November 28, 2016, in which to either a) file an amended complaint that states viable federal civil claim, or b) show cause why this action should ot be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Failure to do so will result in the action eing dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/31/2016.(JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ROBERT CHRISTOPHER KETTERBURG,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN R. LAYTON Marion County Sheriff,
Defendant.

No. 1:16-cv-02926-TWP-TAB

Entry Denying In Forma Pauperis Status, Discussing Complaint,
And Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause
I.
The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is denied without prejudice
because the motion contains no information relating to the plaintiff’s income, resources, and
expenses. He shall have through November 28, 2016, in which to either pay the $400.00 filing
fee to the Clerk of the Court, or renew his request to proceed in forma pauperis with supporting
information.
II.
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 brings his complaint against Marion County Sheriff John R. Layton. The
plaintiff alleges no facts, but states in his single sentence complaint that he “formally charges

Defendant Marion County Sheriff John R. Layton with Title 18 of the US Code, Sections 241,
242, 247, 1113, 1117, 2236, 1506, 373, and 2340A, as defined in Section 2340.”
The plaintiff does not allege any facts stating what the defendant did to violate these
sections of Title 18 and when the acts occurred. The complaint therefore fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
Moreover, Plaintiff is reminded that there is no private cause of action arising out of the
criminal statutes asserted by the plaintiff. Any criminal charges would have to be initiated at the
United States Attorney’s Office, not by filing a civil lawsuit. See e.g., Brown v. Milwaukee
County Jail, No. 15-cv-509 PP, 2016 WL 128519 (E.D.Wis. Jan. 12, 2016) (“A private citizen,
such as the plaintiff, cannot sue someone under 18 U.S.C. § 241; only a federal prosecutor (such
as the United States Attorney or the Attorney General) may bring charges under this statute.”);
Westbrook v. Keihin Aircon North America, No. 1:14-cv-09-WTL-DML, 2014 WL 6908472
(S.D. Ind. Dec. 5, 2014) (“18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 245 are criminal statutes that do not
provide for a private right of action.”).
The plaintiff shall have through November 28, 2016, in which to either a) file an
amended complaint that states a viable federal civil claim, or b) show cause why this action
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Failure to do so will result in the action being dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Date: 10/31/2016

Distribution:
Robert Christopher Ketterburg
PO BOX 352
Indianapolis, IN 46206-0352