ARTHUR v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 15

Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - For the reasons in this Entry and the reasons set forth in the Court's previous Entries dated October 23, 2015, and November 16, 2015, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (See Entry) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/1/2015. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. (GSO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

BRENT LELAND ARTHUR,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:15-cv-00326-JMS-WGH

Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
The plaintiff brought this case against the United States seeking $33,000,000 in
compensation for undescribed “Constitutional Violations resulting in Permanent Bodily Injury.”
The Court screened the plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted in the Court’s Entry dated October 23, 2015. In that Entry, the Court
permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint that explains “who did what when in
accordance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” and gave him detailed
instructions on the format and content of his amended complaint.
Instead of filing an amended complaint as instructed, the plaintiff submitted several letters
to the Court. He stated that “a complete statement of the events” can be found in letters he sent to
Chief Justice Loretta Rush of the Indiana Supreme Court. He also briefly summarized those facts,
stating that, among other things, a law enforcement officer snuck a hallucinogenic drug into his
pocket during booking that the plaintiff ate, which caused him to hallucinate, and he has been
“limping” ever since.
In an Entry dated November 16, 2015, the Court explained that it cannot consider
information sent to the Indiana Supreme Court and that “he must send it to this Court” for it to be

considered. Further, the Court explained that “the summary in the plaintiff’s letter does not
constitute an amended complaint nor comply with the Court’s directions in its October 23, 2015,
Entry on how to file an amended complaint.” Finally, the Court noted that “the events summarized
in his letter do not at all relate to any conduct over which the United States could be sued.” The
Court then extended the deadline for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complies with
the Court’s instruction and cures the deficiencies explained.
The plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint in accordance with the Court’s
instructions. He instead filed three more letters with the Court. The first two explain that the
Indiana Supreme Court has the necessary information regarding this case and that he has received
deficiencies notices from them (and the letters also repeat allegations regarding a hallucinogenic
planted in his pocket that he took). The third letter reiterates that he sent the Indiana Supreme
Court detailed information regarding his allegations in this case and asks the Court to let him know
if the Court is unable to obtain the information from that Court.
The Court has already explained to the plaintiff that it cannot consider information he sent
to the Indiana Supreme Court and, further, that he must file an amended complaint in accordance
with the Court’s instructions. He has failed to do so and has ignored the Court’s previous
instructions on how he must proceed in this action. Further, even if the plaintiff’s letters were
construed as an amended complaint, he has again failed to allege any wrongdoing on the part of
the United States, let alone conduct for which the United States may be held liable. See, e.g., Furry
v. Untied States, 712 F.3d 988, 992 (7th Cir. 2013) (explaining the federal tort claims act “waived
the United States’s sovereign immunity for suits brought by persons injured by the negligence of
federal employees acting within the scope of their employment”). For these reasons and the
reasons set forth in the Court’s previous Entries dated October 23, 2015, and November 16, 2015,

this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: December 1, 2015

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Brent Leland Arthur
Knox County Jail
Inmate Mail/Parcels
2375 S. Old Decker Road
Vincennes, IN 47591