RAY v. INDIANA et al

Filing 4

ENTRY - 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Any claims against the State of Indiana and CPS are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the State (or a state agency) cannot be sue d in federal court due to Indiana's Eleventh Amendment immunity. For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff shall have thr ough January 11, 2018, in which to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Failure to respond to this order to show cause will result in the dismissal of the action for the reasons discussed in this Entry without further notice. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/12/2017. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff) (MEJ) Modified on 12/13/2017 to clarify (MEJ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BOBBY J. RAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANA,
CPS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-04488-TWP-DML

Entry Granting In Forma Pauperis Motion, Dismissing Complaint,
and Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause
I. In Forma Pauperis
The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is granted.
II. Screening
The complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This
statute directs 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.
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,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
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).
Allegations
Mr. Ray lives in Indianapolis, Indiana. He alleges that he has “been with the same person
for 13 years and never gotten a fair shot at life. For the last 13 years I been lock[ed] up about 3-5
times because of this person and haven’t really done not a dang thing wrong.” Dkt. 1, p. 2. …
“We been thru CPS 2X and I even told them something was wrong with her. I would like to sue
them too if I can too. I have 3 kids by her and 1 stepchild with her. Id. The named defendants are
1) the State of Indiana, and 2) CPS, which the Court assumes is Child Protective Services, a state
agency.
Mr. Ray alleges he is suing because of the emotional stress CPS has caused him and his
children. Dkt. 1, p. 3. For relief, he requests that the court award him and his children $2 million
dollars and also give people the right to speak if and when any law enforcement comes up to
talk. Dkt. 1, p. 4.
Discussion
Mr. Ray’s claims are difficult to discern, but he appears to be concerned with matters that
involve the CPS and his children. The CPS, generally speaking, deals with allegations of abuse
or neglect of children. These are domestic matters over which this Court lacks jurisdiction. See
Alpern v. Lieb, 38 F.3d 933, 934 (7th Cir. 1994) (holding that the domestic relations exception,
among other doctrines, barred suit for damages against the plaintiff's ex-wife, attorney, and judge
who presided over divorce proceedings); Ervin v. Ervin, 571 Fed.Appx. 464, 466 (7th Cir. 2014)
(observing that a lawsuit attacking an order to pay child and spousal support on due process

grounds was “a domestic-relations case, and thus is probably excluded from federal-court
jurisdiction by the domestic relations doctrine.”).
“When a court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, it is improper for it to proceed to the merits
of the issue.” United States v. Rachuy, 743 F.3d 205, 211 (7th Cir. 2014). “Jurisdiction is the
power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is
that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Steele Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (internal quotation omitted). 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).
Even if Mr. Ray’s claims did not involve domestic matters such as child custody or child
abuse, he has not named a viable defendant. Any claims against the State of Indiana and CPS are
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the State (or a
state agency) cannot be sued in federal court due to Indiana’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.
See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985); Omosegbon v. Wells, 335 F.3d 668, 673 (7th
Cir. 2003); Billman v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. 1995).
For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

III. Show Cause
The plaintiff shall have through January 11, 2018, in which to show cause why this
action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Failure to respond to this order to show cause will result in the
dismissal of the action for the reasons discussed in this Entry without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

12/12/2017

Distribution:
BOBBY J. RAY
2242 Elizabeth St.
Indianapolis, IN 46219