United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ANTHONY C. MARTIN, Plaintiff,
LARRY FOWLER, LISA ASH, MICHELLE RAINS, PENNY EDEN, DAVIS, LONG, SARAH PECKHAM, SANDFORD, Defendants.
Gore INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Brandon Alan Skates INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ORDER IMPOSING FILING BAN AND DISMISSING
R. SWEENEY II, JUDGE.
Anthony C. Martin has once again attempted to defraud the
Court. For the reasons explained below, this action is
dismissed with prejudice and Mr. Martin is ordered to pay the
outstanding filing fees owed to this Court as a sanction for
his misconduct. Until he pays those fees, the Clerk of the
Court is ordered to return unfiled any papers Mr. Martin
submits to this Court, with the exception of appeal documents
and habeas cases.
Martin is a frequent litigator in the state of Indiana. He
has filed more than 50 civil actions since 2000. He has filed
14 cases in this district in the past two years. Many of his
lawsuits have been dismissed at screening for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See e.g.,
Martin v. State of Indiana, 1:12-cv-146-JTM-RBC (N.D.
Ind. May 30, 2012) (dismissing case as frivolous and
malicious and warning Mr. Martin that if he files another
frivolous or malicious lawsuit he may then be sanctioned by
being restricted from any further civil litigation in this
court.); Martin v. Fort Wayne Police Department,
1:04-cv-450-TLS-RBC (N.D. Ind. Nov. 21, 2005) (dismissing
action as sanction for failure to comply with Court orders);
Martin v. Ross, 1:08-cv-199-TLS-RBC (N.D. Ind. Nov.
25, 2008) (dismissing action at screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915e(2)(B)(ii)); Martin v. Ross,
1:08-cv-247-RL-RBC (N.D. Ind. Oct. 31, 2008) (dismissing
action at screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915e(2)).
Martin also has a history of attempting to further his
litigation through deception. The Northern District of
Indiana dismissed two cases after finding that Mr. Martin had
made false statements. In Martin v. Fort Wayne Police
Department, 1:09-cv-154-RL-RBC (N.D. Ind. 2009), the
Court found that Mr. Martin filed an in forma
pauperis petition with intentional misrepresentations in
an attempt to deceive the court. Mr. Martin's case was
dismissed with prejudice as a sanction. In Martin v.
York, 1:09-cv-332-JTM-RBC (N.D. Ind. 2009), Mr. Martin
again intentionally misrepresented his financial status in an
attempt to deceive the court. In response, the Northern
District of Indiana dismissed the case with prejudice and
restricted Martin from filing any new case without prepaying
the filing fee for two years.
recently in this Court, No. 1:18-cv-2443-JRS-MPB was
dismissed at screening after the Court held that Mr.
Martin's false statements made the complaint factually
frivolous. On October 9, 2018, this Court wrote:
Mr. Martin was previously warned by the Northern District of
Indiana that if he continues to file false statements or
frivolous actions, he could be sanctioned. In particular, the
Court could direct the Clerk to refuse to file any papers
submitted by Mr. Martin in any civil case. See Support
Sys. Int'l v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir.
1995). Mr. Martin is notified that if he makes another false
statement in this Court this sanction will be imposed.
Martin v. Zantecky, No. 1:18-cv-2443-JRS-MPB, dkt. 8
at p. 5 (S.D. Ind. October 9, 2018).
Martin's most recent false statement was made in this
action in his Motion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel.
Dkt. 61. The motion for assistance with recruiting counsel
form used by this Court states: “List any other cases
you have filed without counsel and note whether the Court
recruited counsel to assist you in any of those cases.”
In response, the plaintiff wrote “N/A.” Dkt. 61
at p. 3. Mr. Martin's response that this question is
“not applicable” to him because there are no
cases to list is false and intended to deceive.
Anthony C. Martin has filed at least 37 civil cases in the
Northern District of Indiana. Eight of these civil cases are
pending. He has filed 15 civil cases in this Court where 12
remain pending. It appears that nearly all of these cases
were filed without the assistance of counsel and should have
been referenced in his motion for assistance recruiting
to recruit an attorney is a difficult decision: Almost
everyone would benefit from having a lawyer, but there are
too many indigent litigants and too few lawyers willing and
able to volunteer for these cases.” Olson v.
Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014). It is for
this reason that the Court requires accurate information in
motions for counsel to fairly determine which of the hundreds
of litigants seeking counsel each year should receive it. To
make clear the importance of truthfulness, the motion ...