United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING FILING FEE, DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
WALTON PRATT, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Brenda Parker's
(“Parker”) Motion for Leave to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis, dkt.  and for screening of her
Complaint for Damages for Willful Deprivation of Rights and
Fraud upon the Courts, dkt .
plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying
fees or costs, dkt , is granted because
the Court finds that the plaintiff does not have the assets
or means to pay the filing fee.
Screening of the Complaint
courts have an obligation under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints before service on the
defendants, and 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. Dismissal under the in forma pauperis
statute is an exercise of the Court's discretion.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992). 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 under federal pleading
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to 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). Thus, a
“plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on
paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader,
might suggest that something has happened to her
that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v.
Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir.2010)
(emphasis in original).
underlying factual basis for this action allegedly began in
May 2014, when the plaintiffs 2006 Ford Explorer was
illegally repossessed. In response the plaintiff participated
in legal proceedings challenging this repossession. The
complaint alleges in pertinent part:
10. Plaintiff Parker filed this action on January 22, 2016 in
Marion County Superior Court of Indianapolis Indiana,
reassigned case #49D04-1601-CT002531 after" Plaintiff
Parker filed a Federal Civil Action against fewer than all
Defendants in U.S. District Court of Southern District of
Indiana, Case #1:15-cv-00826-JMS-TAB, filed on May 26, 2015,
It was the U.S. District Court which declined supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff Parker's State law claims and
informed Plaintiff to file for State law claims in State
Court. Plaintiff thereby, filed this action in the Superior
Court of Marion County on January 22, 2016, well after the
federal action was already pending in Federal Court.
Dkt. 1 at p. 3. The plaintiff further states that she has
related claims pending in the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. The plaintiff asserts that “[a]ll Defendants
conspired in all the proceedings from filing dates through
February 27, 2017, which led up to Plaintiff Parker filing
this present action to make Void, the Void Judgment [that]
has caused a stain upon the judicial system. . . .”
underlying May 2014 repossession claim may not be brought in
this action because it is barred by the statute of
limitations. The complaint is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Suits under § 1983 use the statute of
limitations and tolling rules that states employ for
personal-injury claims. In Indiana, the applicable statute of
limitations period is two years. See Richards v.
Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 637 (7th Cir. 2012); Ind. Code
§ 34-11-2-4. This action was filed on March 5, 2018,
more than three years after the expiration of Indiana's
2-year statute of limitations. “[D]ismissal under Rule
12(b)(6) on the basis of a limitations defense may be
appropriate when the plaintiff effectively pleads [himself]
out of court by alleging facts that are sufficient to
establish the defense.” Hollander v. Brown,
457 F.3d 688, 691 n.1 (7th Cir. 2006) (internal citations
omitted); see also Koch v. Gregory, 536 Fed.Appx.
659 (7th Cir. 2013) (stating that when the language of the
complaint plainly shows that the statute of limitations bars
the suit, dismissal under § 1915A is appropriate);
Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d
687, 690 (7th Cir. 2012).
addition, this Court has no authority to dismiss, review, or
otherwise interfere with the state court case that the
plaintiff believes has been mismanaged. See In re
Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir. 2001) (observing
that as a general matter, federal courts lack authority to
“control or interfere with state court
litigation”); Lewis v. Anderson, 308 F.3d 768,
771-72 (7th Cir. 2002) (“lower federal courts do not
have jurisdiction to conduct direct review of state court
decisions.”). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine
strips the district court of jurisdiction to involve itself
in the plaintiff's attempt at an appeal of the state
court decisions, notwithstanding her allegations that the
state court's judgment runs afoul of the United States
Constitution. See Brokaw v. Weaver, 305 F.3d 660,
664 (7th Cir. 2002)(“Simply put, the Rooker [v.
Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)]-[District
of Columbia Court of Appeals v.] Feldman[, 460 U.S. 462
(1983), ] doctrine ‘precludes lower federal court
jurisdiction over claims seeking review of state court
judgments . . . [because] no matter how erroneous or
unconstitutional the state court judgment may be, the Supreme
Court of the United States is the only federal court that
could have jurisdiction to review a state court
judgment.' Thus, if a claim is barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the case.”) (internal
citations and footnote omitted). Accordingly, claims based on
decisions made by other courts and court proceedings are
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
viable claims over which this Court has jurisdiction have
been identified. ...