United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, DISMISSING
COMPLAINT, DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO CEASE THREATENING FILINGS,
AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
In Forma Pauperis
plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
dkt. , is granted. The assessment of an
initial partial filing fee is not feasible at this time.
Notwithstanding the foregoing ruling, “[a]ll [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).
Michael Cable (“Mr. Cable”) is a prisoner
currently incarcerated at the Marion County Jail. 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. In
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).
Cable brings this action against the following defendants: 1)
Paternity Court E-156; 2); Lori Durbin; 3) Steve Durbin; 4)
John Cox; and 5) Michelle Lane Cox - Person 2523. For some
unknown reason Mr. Cable refers to the mother of his children
as “Person 2523.” That moniker is associated, no
doubt, with the fact that Mr. Cable signs his own name as
“in propria persona” and describes himself as a
claim brought against Paternity Court E-156 is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted because a courtroom is not a
Cable does not allege any specific wrongdoing on the part of
the remaining defendants. In order to state a constitutional
claim against an individual defendant, a plaintiff must
allege facts sufficient to reflect that the defendant
participated in unconstitutional activity. See Burks v.
Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 593-94 (7th Cir. 2009). Because
no allegations of misconduct are alleged on the part of the
defendants, the claims against them must be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
Cable's claims are for the most part unintelligible. It
is clear that he is not pleased with rulings issued in a
State court paternity action relating to his daughters, but
any such claims brought in this Court are dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. This Court lacks
jurisdiction over domestic relations matters. Ankenbrandt
v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (reaffirming the
“domestic relations exception” to exercising
diversity jurisdiction and noted that this exception
“divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce,
alimony, and child custody decrees”); Jones v.
Brennan, 465 F.3d 304, 306 (7th Cir. 2006) (the
domestic-relations exception “denies federal
jurisdiction to grant a divorce or exercise the other
characteristic powers of a domestic-relations court”).
“relief wanted” section of his complaint, Mr.
Cable threatens the Court and others he asserts are
responsible for perceived wrongdoing. The Court does not
respond to nor tolerate such threats, and Mr. Cable is
well-advised to CEASE all such
communications in the future.