Frohwerk v. Certain Property at 5501 S 1100 West, No. 2:2011cv00382 - Document 3 (N.D. Ind. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: This action is DISMISSED as frivolous and malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 11/1/2011. cc: Frohwerk (tc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION DAVID FROHWERK, Plaintiff, vs. CERTAIN PROPERTY AT 5501 S. 1100 WEST, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 2:11-CV-382 OPINION AND ORDER David Frohwerk, a pro se prisoner, filed a case-initiating document labeled, Motion for Attachment Lien and Bond Hearing. (DE 1.) For the reasons set forth below, this action is DISMISSED as frivolous and malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. BACKGROUND David Frohwerk, a pro se prisoner, initiated this case on October 21, 2011, by filing a document labeled, Motion for Attachment Lien and Bond Hearing. (DE 1.) In essence, Frohwerk seeks to place an attachment lien on the Westville Correctional Facility ( Westville ) based on what he believes to be inadequate conditions at that facility. (Id.) DISCUSSION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court applies the same standard as when deciding a motion to dismiss under FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal, a complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). 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. Id. at 603. Thus, a plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to her that might be redressed by the law. Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir.2010) (emphasis in original). The court must bear in mind, however, that [a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. 2 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). This action is frivolous. Frohwerk is not entitled to place a lien on the correctional facility, since he does not have a judgment against the facility. See generally IND. CODE § 34-55-9-2. To the extent Frohwerk is attempting to challenge the conditions of his confinement at Westville, he already has a case pending in which he raises these same allegations. See Frohwerk v. Lemmon, et al., No. 2:11-CV-221-PS (N.D. Ind. filed June 24, 2011.) It is malicious for Frohwerk to file multiple suits based on the same set of facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109 (7th Cir. 2003) (suit is malicious for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A if it is intended to harass or is otherwise abusive of the judicial process); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993) (it is malicious for a plaintiff with in forma pauperis status to file a lawsuit that duplicates allegations of another pending lawsuit). Accordingly, this case must be dismissed. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, this action is DISMISSED as frivolous and malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. DATED: November 1, 2011 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge United States District Court 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.