United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER ENTRY DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE.
plaintiff shall have through March 15, 2017, in which to
either pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action or
demonstrate that he lacks the financial ability to do so. Jf
he seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, his
request must be accompanied by a copy of the transactions
associated with his institution trust account for the 6-month
period preceding the filing of this action on February 10,
plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Pendleton
Correctional Facility ("Pendleton"). Because the
plaintiff is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(h), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) to screen his complaint before service on the
defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court
must dismiss the 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, m
determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court
applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th
Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro
se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff are
construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v.
Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
plaintiff brings this action against an Indiana state court
judge and two employees of the Delaware County Clerk's
Office. He asks this Court to enforce a $91, 500, 000.00
judgment that he allegedly obtained against seventeen
defendants in Delaware County Circuit Court in case numbers
18C01-1610-PL-128 and 18C05-0908-FB-11.
action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Subject to specific exceptions not implicated
by the circumstances of this case, "[a] federal court
may exercise jurisdiction where: 1) the requirements for
diversity jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332 are
met; or 2) the matter arises under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States as provided in 28 U.S.C. §
1331." Barringer-Willis v. Healthsource North
Carolina, 14 F.Supp.2d 780, 781 (E.D. N.C. 1998).
'"A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or
constitutional power to adjudicate the case.'"
Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of
Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting
Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund,
81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996)). The Court of Appeals has
repeatedly held that "the party invoking federal
jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating its
existence." See Hart v. FedEx Ground Pkg. Sys.
Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 2006).
there is no allegation of conduct which could support the
existence of federal question jurisdiction. See Williams
v. Aztar Ind. Gaming Corp., 351 F.3d 294, 298 (7th Cir.
2003)(explaining federal courts may exercise federal-question
jurisdiction when a plaintiffs right to relief is created by
or depends on a federal statute or constitutional provision).
The plaintiff is asking this Court to enforce an alleged
state court judgment. In addition, there is no allegation of
diversity of citizenship. See Denlinger v. Brennan,
87 F.3d 214, 217 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that failure to
include allegations of citizenship requires dismissal of
complaint based on diversity jurisdiction). All of the
parties appear to be residents of Indiana.
plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed for the reason set
forth above. The plaintiff shall have through March 15 2017,
in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this
Entry should not issue. 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.").