United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, DISMISSING
COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE.
In Forma Pauperis
plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
[dkt. 2] is granted. Notwithstanding this ruling, the
plaintiff still owes the $350.00 filing fee. “All [28
U.S.C.] § 1915 has ever done is excuse
pre-payment of the docket fees; a litigant remains
liable for them, and for other costs, although poverty may
make collection impossible.” Abdul-Wadood v.
Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023, 1025 (7th Cir. 1996).
complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This statute directs 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
Jay Atkins, III, brings this civil action against the
following defendants: 1) Behavioral Health Services of
Community Howard Regional Health; 2) Dr. Erika C. Cornett;
and 3) Dr. Jhon Francis Shultz. Mr. Atkins alleges that
beginning in 2010 in Kokomo, Indiana, he was misdiagnosed and
given a poisonous drug for four years, once a month, for a
condition he did not have, schizophrenia. He alleges that the
drug required him to be hospitalized and to experience
seizures, convulsions, and other side effects. He seeks ten
million dollars for pain and suffering.
matter jurisdiction defines the court's authority to hear
a given type of case, ” United States v.
Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 828 (1984), and is the first
question in every case. Sherman v. Community Consol. Sch.
Dist. 21 of Wheeling Twp., 980 F.2d 437, 440 (7th Cir.
1992). “[O]nce the district judge has reason to believe
that there is a serious jurisdictional issue, [s]he is
obliged to resolve it before proceeding to the merits . . . .
“ Crawford v. United States, 796 F.2d 924, 929
(7th Cir. 1986).
district courts such as this are “courts of limited
jurisdiction.” Healy v. Metropolitan Pier &
Exposition Auth., 804 F.3d 836, 845 (7th Cir. 2015).
They have original “federal question”
jurisdiction of “all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 1331. They also have “diversity”
jurisdiction of all civil actions which meet two
requirements: First, there must be “complete
diversity” between all named plaintiffs and all named
defendants, meaning that “no plaintiff may be a citizen
of the same state as any defendant.” Altom
Transport, Inc. v. Westchester Fire, Ins. Co., 823 F.3d
416, 420 (7th Cir. 2016); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1). Second, the amount in controversy must exceed
$75, 000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
there is no diversity between the parties. In addition, the
Court does not discern any federally protected rights that
have been allegedly violated by the defendants. It appears
that Mr. Atkins is attempting to bring medical malpractice or
negligence claims, which are based on state law. The
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted because the federal court lacks jurisdiction.
plaintiff can plead himself out of court by alleging facts
that show there is no viable claim.” Pugh v.
Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686, 699 (7th Cir. 2008). For the
above reasons, the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject
Atkins shall have through January 20, 2017, in which to
either show cause why judgment consistent with this Entry
should not issue or to identify a viable claim which was not
considered by the Court in this Entry. See Luevano v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir.
2013) (“Without at least an opportunity to amend or to
respond to an order to show cause, an IFP applicant's
case could be tossed out of court without giving the
applicant any timely notice or opportunity to be heard to
clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend.”).
plaintiff fails to show cause or seek leave to amend, the
action will be dismissed for lack of subject ...