United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
March 3, 2015
HOMER E. HOSKINS, Plaintiff,
ENTRY DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WARNING PLAINTIFF TO STOP FILING FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
I. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis
The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is denied because the information contained in the motion is illegible or incomplete. The plaintiff continues to owe the $400.00 filing fee. Similarly, motion to appoint counsel [dkt 3] is denied as premature. The filing fee has not been paid, the complaint has not been screened, and the defendants have not been served. In addition, the Seventh Circuit has found that “until the defendants respond to the complaint, the plaintiff's need for assistance of counsel . . . cannot be gauged.” Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 2013).
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 alleges that the defendant, Bobby, an apparent police employee, would not let him file charges regarding his allegations that someone removed his property from his room. The plaintiff seeks 10 million dollars and to have Bobby imprisoned for life. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be grated. The Seventh Circuit does not recognize a claim for “inadequate police investigatory work” in the absence of some other recognized constitutional violation. Lyons v. Adams, 257 F.Supp.2d 1125, 1135 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (citing Jacobson v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 97 C 6012, 1999 WL 1101299, at *10 (N.D.Ill. Nov.29, 1999); Washington v. Godinez, No. 95 C 7612, 1996 WL 599055, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Oct.17, 1996) (“[T]here is no constitutional right to an investigation by a police officer unless another recognized constitutional right is involved.”)).
This complaint warrants no further judicial time. It is one of 34 cases and counting that the plaintiff has filed within the past week. The action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
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 issue appropriate sanctions up to an including an order barring the plaintiff from future filings in this Court
IT IS SO ORDERED.