United States District Court, N.D. Indiana
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE
The
Plaintiff, Calvin Wilson, has filed a Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF No. 1] naming, as the
sole Defendant, Allen Superior Court Judge Stanley A. Levine,
in his official capacity. The Plaintiff asserts that he has
been denied, and continues being denied, access to state
court to file a civil action, and that this denial violates
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This
matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss [ECF No. 12].
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
A case
may be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) when the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject
matter. “Subject-matter jurisdiction is the first
question in every case, and if the court concludes that it
lacks jurisdiction it must proceed no further.”
Illinois v. City of Chi., 137 F.3d 474, 478 (7th
Cir. 1998). However, a court is not required to
“consider subject matter jurisdiction over all other
threshold matters, ” but may choose among threshold
grounds for denying consideration of a case on its merits.
Meyers v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wis.,
836 F.3d 818, 821 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Ruhrgas AG v.
Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584-85 (1999)). When
considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded
factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the plaintiff. Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic
Bishop of Chi., 320 F.3d 698, 701 (7th Cir. 2003).
Additionally,
under Rule 8's pleading requirements, a plaintiff must
provide a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” that is
sufficient to provide the defendant with “fair
notice” of the claim and its basis. Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). To assure that a pleading suffices to give effective
notice to the opposing party, a complaint must contain facts
that are sufficient, when accepted as true, to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). 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). Pleadings that fail to meet this standard are
subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Although the court must accept as true all
well-pleaded facts and draw all permissible inferences in the
Plaintiff's favor, it need not accept as true
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly 550
U.S. at 555). Legal conclusions can provide a complaint's
framework, but unless well-pleaded factual allegations move
the claims from conceivable to plausible, they are
insufficient to state a claim. Id. at 680. A
plaintiff can also plead himself out of court if he pleads
facts that preclude relief. See Atkins v. City of
Chi., 631 F.3d 823, 832 (7th Cir. 2011).
B.
Complaint Allegations
On May
31, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a civil complaint in the
Allen Superior Court, in which he alleged violations of
federal constitutional rights and state tort laws. (Compl.
¶¶ 9-10.) Accompanying the complaint and the
appearance of counsel, was a signed motion for waiver of the
filing fee, in which the Plaintiff declared that he did not
have assets to pay the state court filing fee. (Id.
¶ 12.) On June 1, 2018, the Allen County Superior Court
returned the civil complaint to the Plaintiff. It did not
have a case number and had not been filed in court. The
reason cited was “Incorrect or missing Fees” with
the comment “Filing Fee Waiver Denied by Judge Levine
on 6/1/2018.” (Id. ¶ 14.) The appearance
of counsel was also returned for “Incorrect or missing
Fees.” (Id. ¶ 15.)
On June
14, 2018, the Plaintiff attempted to file a motion to
reconsider the refusal to file and permit the filing of his
civil complaint. The motion was served on the Defendant
personally. The motion was rejected without filing and
returned to the Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 18.)
On July
9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandamus
with the Indiana Supreme Court requesting a writ ordering
that his civil complaint be accepted for filing, and that the
state court issue an order granting or denying his motion for
waiver of the filing fee. (Id. ¶ 19.) On July
12, 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court denied the petition.
On July
24, 2018, the Plaintiff “attempted again to file his
civil complaint, his attorney's appearance, and his
motion for fee waiver in the Allen Superior Court.”
(Id. ¶ 21.) The Defendant refused the filing
and returned it to him without a formal order, or the
assignment of a cause number.
C.
Analysis
The
Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied the ability to
commence a civil action in the Allen Superior Court. The
Indiana Trial Rules set forth the requirements for commencing
an action. Specifically, Indiana Trial Rule 3 provides:
A civil action is commenced by filing with the court a
complaint or such equivalent pleading or document as may be
specified by statute, by payment of the prescribed filing fee
or filing an order waiving the filing fee, and, where service
of process is required, by furnishing to the ...