PARKER v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE et al

Filing 8

Entry Dismissing Amended Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - When it is determined that a court lacks jurisdiction, its only course of action is to announce that fact and dismiss the case. Judgment dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction shall now be entered. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/9/2018.(NAD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BRENDA PARKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES J. MORRISSEY,
ANNA-KATRINA SARANTI CHRISTAKIS,
JOHN DOE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-00660-TWP-MJD

Entry Dismissing Amended Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction
and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
“Courts . . . have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,
546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or
transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense. This
is so even when the plaintiff has paid all fees for filing and service.” Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d
761, 762 (7th Cir. 2003). For the reasons explained below, there is a complete absence of a
plausible federal claim alleged in the amended complaint and “[t]he Supreme Court has frequently
said that a suit which is frivolous does not invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. . . .” Crowley
Cutlery Company v. United States, 849 F.2d 273 (7th Cir. 1988).
Ms. Brenda Parker filed this civil action against the Attorneys James J. Morrissey and
Anna-Katrina Saranti Christakis and John Doe Managers and Officers. She was granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.

Ms. Parker alleges that the defendants entered into a civil conspiracy in the State of Indiana
and conspired to commit crimes against the Courts in the State of Indiana. She claims that thru a
civil conspiracy she was willfully deprived of her Constitutional Rights and impartial treatment in
a court of law. The defendant attorneys are residents of Cook County, Illinois. The unnamed
defendants are employees of Capital One.
Ms. Parker explains that the violations occurred after she filed a civil action in Marion
County Superior Court in Indianapolis, Indiana, on January 22, 2016. That case was assigned case
number 49D10-1601-CT-002531. 1 The exhibits attached to the original complaint reflect that the
state court action was filed as a result of her vehicle having been repossessed. She asserted claims
for theft, fraud, conversion, breach of the peace against several defendants. Dkt. 1-2 at p. 2.
The Amended Complaint alleges (in relevant part) that in the course of that state court case:

….

1

Ms. Parker had other claims resolved in this Court in case number 1:15-cv-826-JMS-TAB. She
reports that two appeals are pending in the Seventh Circuit under case numbers 17-2123 and 173101. These claims are brought against defendants not named in this action.

Ms. Parker’s allegations reflect her belief that there was a conspiracy or “illegal secret agreement”
to submit fraudulent documents in her state court civil action with the purpose of depriving her of
her property and rights and achieving a favorable decision for the defendants’ clients. Amended
Complaint at dkt. 7, p. 6. She seeks money damages.
Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal
claim is proper only when the claim is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions
of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.”
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (citing Oneida Indian Nation of
N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974); Romero v. International Terminal Operating
Co., 358 U.S. 354, 359 (1959)). That is the case here. Mr. Parker may genuinely believe that there
was a conspiracy between three separate state court judges and the defendant attorneys that resulted
in her not prevailing on her legal claims in state court. But that belief is so implausible that it
cannot be the basis of a federal claim. Her appropriate remedy was to file an appeal of the state
court judge’s decision that denied her motion to set aside Judge Dreyer’s Order Dismissing Case

with Prejudice and Other Relief or to otherwise attack the allegedly false evidence in the state
court proceedings. See dkt. 1-1 (submission of portions of state court record).
When it is determined that a court lacks jurisdiction, its only course of action is to announce
that fact and dismiss the case. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94 (“‘Jurisdiction is 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.’”)(quoting Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868)).
Judgment dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction shall now be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/9/2018

Distribution:
BRENDA PARKER
1389 W. 86th Street
#177
Indianapolis, IN 46260