United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge United States District Court
September 12, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff Lionel David
Fowler's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, dismissed his Complaint without prejudice,
denied as moot Defendants' Motion for a More Definite
Statement, and provided leave for Mr. Fowler to file an
amended complaint. [Filing No. 8.] Mr. Fowler has now filed a
document titled “Motion Rule 8, ” [Filing No. 9],
and, because it appears that he is attempting to set forth
allegations against Defendants in the Motion, the Court will
construe the Motion as an amended Complaint.Mr. Fowler has
also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in
Support, [Filing No. 10; Filing No. 11], and a 100-page
collection of documents, [Filing No. 12]. This Order screens
the Construed Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), dismisses it with prejudice, and denies the
remaining motion as moot.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court shall dismiss a
case brought by a plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis “at any time if the court determines that
. . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious; . . . fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or . . .
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” In determining whether a 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
[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).
Fowler's Construed Amended Complaint contains several
sections, the first titled “Motion Failure of
Consideration.” [Filing No. 9 at 2.] This section
discusses what constitutes a failure of consideration and
contains quoted material from various court cases and legal
treatises. [Filing No. 9 at 3-5.] Although not entirely
clear, it appears that in the next section, called
“Motion Rebuttal, ” Mr. Fowler alleges that he
received an erroneous medical bill. [Filing No. 9 at 6.] In
the final section, “Motion Sequester, ” Mr.
Fowler states that he spoke with an attorney about his case.
[Filing No. 9 at 7.] Construing the allegations very
liberally, it appears that Mr. Fowler intended to state that
his Complaint was erroneously dismissed. [Filing No. 9 at 7.]
Construed Amended Complaint suffers from the same defects as
Mr. Fowler's first Complaint: it is too confusing and
unintelligible to provide basic notice of the nature of his
claims or assure the Court that it has jurisdiction over this
matter. [Filing No. 8 at 3]; Stanard v. Nygren, 658
F.3d 792, 797-98 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that
“unintelligibility is certainly a legitimate reason
for” rejecting a complaint); Loubser v.
Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir. 2006) (noting that
the where a complaint is confusing, a district court is
“within its rights in dismissing it on that
ground”). As the Court previously noted, while it
appears that Mr. Fowler alleges some sort of grievance
concerning a bill he received from Methodist Hospital or
Indiana University Health, he is required to allege his
claims with more clarity and specificity than that. [Filing
No. 8 at 3 (citing Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614
F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[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 [him] that might be redressed by
the law.” (emphasis is original)).] Furthermore,
because Mr. Fowler has already been given a chance to amend
his Complaint and failed to properly do so, the dismissal
will be with prejudice. See Loubser, 440 F.3d at 443
(stating that dismissal with prejudice is proper where
“the plaintiff had demonstrated [his] inability to file
a lucid complaint”).
on the foregoing, Mr. Fowler's Construed Amended
Complaint, , is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. His Motion for
Summary Judgment, , is DENIED ...