HOSKINS v. JEFF AT MIDTOWN, No. 1:2015cv00263 - Document 5 (S.D. Ind. 2015)
Court Description: Entry Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Complaint, and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2 ] is denied because although it is difficult to read, it appears that the plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the filing fee for this action. The plaintiff's blank motion [dkt. 3 ] is denied because it seeks no ruling from the Court. The plaintiff's allegations fall well short of stating a legal claim, and this action must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall issue. Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/27/2015.(MGG)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HOSKINS v. JEFF AT MIDTOWN Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION HOMER E. HOSKINS, Plaintiff, vs. JEFF AT MIDTOWN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:15-cv-00263-TWP-MJD Entry Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Complaint, and Directing Entry of Final Judgment I. Motions The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is denied because although it is difficult to read, it appears that the plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the filing fee for this action. The plaintiff’s blank motion [dkt. 3] is denied because it seeks no ruling from the Court. II. Dismissal of the Complaint The complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This statute requires the Court to dismiss a complaint or claim within a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. The plaintiff sues “Jeff at Midtown,” asserting as follows: Dockets.Justia.com Although difficult to read, it appears that Jeff is the plaintiff’s care coordinator at Midtown. 1 The plaintiff appears to allege that Jeff refused to give the plaintiff a ride, but that Jeff would give other patients a ride, and that Jeff called the plaintiff manic. The plaintiff seeks relief of ten million dollars. The plaintiff’s allegations fall well short of stating a legal claim, and this action must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A complaint that is wholly insubstantial does not invoke the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); African-American Slave Descendants Litig., 471 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2006). “When it becomes clear that a suit filed in forma pauperis is irrational, the district court is required to dismiss it, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).” Ezike v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 2009 WL 247838, *3 (7th Cir. 2009). That is the case here; this case is frivolous and deserves no further judicial time. See Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000); Gladney v. Pendleton Correctional Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 2002). Judgment consistent with this Entry shall issue. 1 The Court notes that Midtown provides mental health services. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 2/27/2015 Distribution: HOMER E. HOSKINS 245 E. Market St. Indianapolis, IN 46204
]]>
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.
