United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
HOMER E. HOSKINS, Plaintiff,
CHANNEL 6 NEWS, Defendant.
ENTRY BANNING PLAINTIFF FROM FILING ANY ADDITIONAL CIVIL PAPERS
RICHARD L. YOUNG, Chief District Judge.
I. Filing Sanction and Restriction
"Every paper filed... no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution's limited resources. A part of the Court's responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice." Montgomery v. Davis, 362 F.3d 956, 957 (7th Cir. 2004) ( quoting In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989)).
This case is frivolous and deserves no further judicial time. It is one of 45 cases, and counting, that plaintiff Hoskins has filed, mostly against private citizens, within the past couple of weeks. Not a single case filed by Mr. Hoskins in this time period has stated a viable federal claim. It appears that Mr. Hoskins files a federal lawsuit against essentially every person or entity with whom he comes into contact. He has sued individuals with no last name. He sued the President because he has "been wrong on many issues." He sued the Vice President because "as Vice President, [sic] job has been wrong." He sued "All Nation [sic] of the World, " alleging that he wants "everyone to go back to the country they came from." Hoskins v. All Nation Abroad, 1:15cv-337-JMS-MJD. Like this case brought against Channel 6 News, he has sued several television stations for not covering a story he called in. He sued "Farrakhan" for making a "boring" speech. He sued "American Idol" alleging that he is the American Idol, seeking 10 trillion dollars. In every case he seeks fantastical amounts of money and often "ownership" of whatever company he sues. In many of his cases, the plaintiff has filed blank motions, motions that court staff must process but which seek absolutely no relief. Mr. Hoskins has also filed a raft of frivolous notices of appeal, even in cases in which no judgment has been entered.
The Court has informed him that he is abusing the Court's limited resources and that if he fails to stop filing frivolous claims and claims that lack federal jurisdiction, he will be sanctioned. See e.g., Hoskins v. Biden, 1:15-cv-00299-JMS-DKL (S.D.Ind. Feb. 26, 2015); Hoskins v. Farrakhan, 1:15-cv-0296-WTL-TAB (S.D.Ind. Feb. 26, 2015). Such warnings have fallen on deaf ears.
In no case has Mr. Hoskins paid the filing fee, although he reports some income and his motions to proceed in forma pauperis have been denied as not supported. For each case filed, he now owes the $400.00 filing fee. He has incurred thousands of dollars in appellate fees as well, just in the past two days.
The Court's docket reflects the litany of frivolous, malicious cases asserting no federal basis for jurisdiction. These cases represent countless hours of Court staff time that could be spent on cases which state viable claims.
The Court has before it hundreds of pending matters which properly invoke its jurisdiction and seek resolution of valid controversies. Mr. Hoskins' abusive patterns must come to an end. Accordingly, the Court is compelled to no longer receive, file, docket, or review his papers. This Entry directs the Clerk how to proceed.
Pursuant to this Court's inherent authority to prevent the abuse of the legal process, protect the limited resources of the judicial system, and promote the interests of justice, the Court now imposes a sanction against Homer E. Hoskins of $1200.00 for filing frivolous cases and motions, to be paid to the Clerk of the Court.
Unless and until Mr. Hoskins has fully paid the $1200.00 sanction imposed against him, the Clerk is directed to not accept and/or return unfiled any papers Mr. Hoskins attempts to file, with the exception of filings in any criminal case in which he is a defendant and any petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release from unlawful custody. This sanction and filing restriction against Mr. Homer E. Hoskins shall remain in effect until he pays the $1200.00 sanction. He also continues to owe all past due filing fees.
This restriction is in effect for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Mr. Hoskins may seek modification or rescission of this Entry but not before two years have passed from the date of issuance.
II. Distribution of Entry
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that "245 E. Market Street, Indianapolis, IN, " the address the plaintiff has provided, is not a residence. The plaintiff has not provided a valid address to the Court so this Entry and Judgment will not be placed in the mail. As he often does, he may pick up a copy of this Entry in the Clerk's Office, Room 105 of the United States ...