HURT v. Unkown (illegible), No. 1:2014cv02016 - Document 4 (S.D. Ind. 2014)
Court Description: Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - Copy Mailed. **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/11/2014.(MGG)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HURT v. Unkown (illegible) Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION TYRONE HURT, Plaintiff, vs. Unknown (illegible) et al. (Bivens v. Six (6) Unknown Narcotics Agents), Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:14-cv-02016-TWP-DKL Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment This action was filed by Tyrone Hurt (a/k/a Tyrone Hunt) a citizen of the District of Columbia. The Court has attempted to decipher the pleadings, however, the defendants’ names and the relief sought are illegible. Mr. Hunt’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is denied because he has failed to demonstrate that he is eligible to proceed in that fashion. As previously mentioned in Hunt v. Hinson, 1:14-cv-1781-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. November 5, 2014), the PACER Case Locator reflects that Mr. Hurt is a frequent filer of frivolous litigation under both the surnames Hurt and Hunt. See Hurt v. Paige, No. 13-1412 (7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2013); Hurt v. D.C. Government, No. 13-1413 (7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2013). He has had filing restrictions placed upon him by the federal courts for the District of Columbia, the Eastern District of California and the District of Massachusetts for filing vexatious litigation. See Hurt v. D.C. Parole Board, 13-11800-DJC (D. Mass. November 20, 2013) (discussing filing restrictions). Because this case is completely illegible, it cannot be declared frivolous. However, a complaint which defines all understanding because the markings do not represent readable letters Dockets.Justia.com cannot proceed. On this basis the complaint is rejected for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is subject to dismissal on this basis. “District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense.” Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 762 (7th Cir. 2003)(citing Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999)). The plaintiff’s recent submissions in other cases in this district reflect that the opportunity to file a legible amended complaint would not bear fruit. See Hurt v. United States of America, Cause No. 1:14-cv-01846-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind. Dec. 9, 2014) (failed to file legible amended complaint after being given opportunity to do so), Hurt v. United States House of Representatives, Cause No. 1:14-cv-01847-JMS-DKL (illegible complaint filed), Hurt v. United States of America, Cause No. 1:14-cv-01866-LJM-TAB (illegible complaint filed). Accordingly, this action is dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 12/11/2014 Distribution: TYRONE HUNT 422 Chesapeake St. SE, #33 Washington, DC 20032
]]>
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.
