BARLOW v. CITY OF MITCHELL et al

Filing 4

ORDER denying 2 Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 8/1/2014. (GMB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
MARILYN BARLOW,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF MITCHELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:14-cv-0083-SEB-DML

Entry Dismissing Complaint, Denying Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings,
and Directing Further Proceedings

The Court has before it the complaint and the emergency motion to stay proceedings filed
by plaintiff Marilyn Barlow on July 31, 2014.
I.
Ms. Barlow shall have through August 25, 2014, in which to either pay the $400.00
filing fee or demonstrate her inability to do so.
II.
Ms. Barlow alleges that the City of Mitchell and Danny Baker (whose title and affiliation
with the City, if any, is not stated) have violated her rights under RICO and the Due Process
Clause of the United States Constitution. She alleges that the City of Mitchell illegally plans to
demolish her home and the property inside it. She further alleges that she was “not part of due
process prior to [a] meeting where Danny Baker fraudulently presented facts and/or distorted
facts for personal gain.” In addition, she alleges that the “City of Mitchell has made fraudulent
claims in part to harass and discriminate against Marilyn Barlow.”

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to contain “a short
and plain statement” showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. To state a claim under Rule 8,
the plaintiff cannot merely plead bare legal conclusions. The plaintiff must allege factual grounds
that entitle her to relief. That is, the plaintiff must state a “plausible claim for relief.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). A claim is plausible if the alleged facts permit a court to
reasonably infer that the defendant is liable under the plaintiff’s theory, beyond some speculative
level. See In re marchFIRST Inc., 589 F.3d 901, 905 (7th Cir. 2009).
The complaint contains only bare legal conclusions and lacks sufficient facts to state a
plausible claim for relief. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
III. Further Proceedings
The dismissal of the complaint will not lead to the dismissal of the action at this time.
Ms. Barlow shall have through August 25, 2014, in which to file an amended complaint that
states a viable claim for relief in light of the deficiencies noted in Part II of this Entry, if she
chooses to do so.
In filing an amended complaint, the plaintiff shall conform to the following guidelines:
(a) the amended complaint shall comply with the requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure that pleadings contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . . ;” (b) the amended complaint shall comply with
the requirement of Rule 10 that the allegations in a complaint be made in numbered paragraphs,
each of which should recite, as far as practicable, only a single set of circumstances; (c) the
amended complaint must identify what legal injury she claims to have suffered and which
individuals are responsible for each such legal injury; and (d) the amended complaint shall

contain a clear statement of the relief that is sought. The amended complaint shall have the
words “amended complaint” and the proper case number, 4:14-cv-0083-SEB-DML, on the first
page.
If no amended complaint is filed, the action will be dismissed in its entirety for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IV.
The emergency motion to stay proceedings is in essence, a motion for temporary
restraining order. This motion [dkt. 2] is denied because it has been filed before any defendant
has been served with process. Under these circumstances, an injunction may be entered only
against a party that has been served and is under the personal jurisdiction of the court. Lake
Shore Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 511 F.3d 762, 767 (7th Cir.
2007); see also Audio Enterprises., Inc. v. B & W Loudspeakers, 957 F.2d 406, 410 (7th Cir.
1992) (vacating preliminary injunction because defendant had not been served); Rule 65 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If this request is renewed, Ms. Barlow must comply with the
requirements of Rule 65(a) or 65(b), as applicable, and with Local Rule 65-2.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
08/01/2014
Date: _________________
Distribution:
Marilyn Barlow
P. O. Box 805
Mitchell, IN 47446

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana