SEVION-EL v. KING et al
ENTRY Directing Further Proceedings-The plaintiff shall have through 3/15/2017, in which to pay the filing fee or show his inability to do so. The plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for the reason set forth above. The plaintiff shall have through 3/15/2017, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/14/2017 (dist made)(CBU)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
MARTIZE JAMES SEVION-EL,
MICHAEL KING, STEVEN G.
CRAYCRAFT, THOMAS A. CANNON, JR.,
Entry Directing Further Proceedings
The plaintiff shall have through March 15, 2017, in which to either pay the $400.00 filing
fee for this action or demonstrate that he lacks the financial ability to do so. If he seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, his request must be accompanied by a copy of the transactions
associated with his institution trust account for the 6-month period preceding the filing of this
action on February 10, 2017.
The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Pendleton Correctional Facility
(“Pendleton”). Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), this Court
has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his complaint before service on the
defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court 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. 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
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim for 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). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff
are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
The plaintiff brings this action against an Indiana state court judge and two employees of
the Delaware County Clerk’s Office. He asks this Court to enforce a $91,500,000.00 judgment that
he allegedly obtained against seventeen defendants in Delaware County Circuit Court in case
numbers 18C01-1610-PL-128 and 18C05-0908-FB-11. 1
This action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Subject to specific
exceptions not implicated by the circumstances of this case, “[a] federal court may exercise
jurisdiction where: 1) the requirements for diversity jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332 are
met; or 2) the matter arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States as provided
in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Barringer-Willis v. Healthsource North Carolina, 14 F. Supp. 2d 780, 781
(E.D.N.C. 1998). “‘A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the
court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.’” Home Builders Ass'n of
Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Nowak v. Ironworkers
The Court takes judicial notice that judgment has not been entered in Delaware County Circuit Court case
no. 18C01-1610-PL-128. A judgment of conviction in Delaware County was entered against the plaintiff
in case number 18C05-0908-FB-11 on December 28, 2010, for criminal confinement, intimidation, and
pointing a firearm. However, these cases do not reflect that Plaintiff has been awarded a multi-million dollar
judgment against the defendants in either of the Delaware County state court actions which he references
in his complaint.
Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996)). The Court of Appeals has repeatedly
held that “the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating its existence.”
See Hart v. FedEx Ground Pkg. Sys. Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 2006).
Here, there is no allegation of conduct which could support the existence of federal
question jurisdiction. See Williams v. Aztar Ind. Gaming Corp., 351 F.3d 294, 298 (7th Cir.
2003)(explaining federal courts may exercise federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff’s right
to relief is created by or depends on a federal statute or constitutional provision). The plaintiff is
asking this Court to enforce an alleged state court judgment. In addition, there is no allegation of
diversity of citizenship. See Denlinger v. Brennan, 87 F.3d 214, 217 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that
failure to include allegations of citizenship requires dismissal of complaint based on diversity
jurisdiction). All of the parties appear to be residents of Indiana.
The plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for the reason set forth above. The plaintiff
shall have through March 15 2017, 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 to amend.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MARTIZE JAMES SEVION-EL
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
Financial Deputy Clerk
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?