HOSKINS v. GREYHOUND BUS STATION, No. 1:2015cv00360 - Document 5 (S.D. Ind. 2015)

Court Description: Entry Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Motion for Counsel,Dismissing Complaint, and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2 ] is denied because it is incomplete. The plain tiff continues to owe the $400.00 filing fee. The plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel [dkt. 3 ] is denied as moot. This action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/4/2015.(MGG)

Download PDF
HOSKINS v. GREYHOUND BUS STATION Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION HOMER E. HOSKINS, Plaintiff, vs. GREYHOUND BUS STATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:15-cv-00360-TWP-MJD Entry Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Motion for Counsel, Dismissing Complaint, and Directing Entry of Final Judgment I. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and Motion for Counsel The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is denied because it is incomplete. The plaintiff continues to owe the $400.00 filing fee. The plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel [dkt. 3] is denied as moot. II. Screening of 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 complaint states that defendant Greyhound Bus Station is liable to him because he was asked to leave the bus station for no reason. He states: Dockets.Justia.com 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); In re AfricanAmerican Slave Descendants Litigation, 471 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir.2006) (“A frivolous federal law claim cannot successfully invoke federal jurisdiction.”). That is the case here. Not only is this case frivolous and worthy of no further judicial time, but it is one of 36 cases, and counting, that the plaintiff has filed within the past couple of weeks. The plaintiff is abusing the Court’s limited resources and if he fails to stop filing frivolous claims and claims that lack federal jurisdiction, the Court will soon issue appropriate sanctions up to and including an order barring the plaintiff from future filings in this Court. This action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date:3/4/2015 Distribution: HOMER E. HOSKINS 1115 S. Illinois St. Indianapolis, IN 46205

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.