United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
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 his Motion for Summary Judgment as premature, and
granted him leave to file an amended complaint. [Filing
No. 9.] Mr. Fowler has now filed a document titled
“Motion Rule 8, ” [Filing No. 10], 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, [Filing No.
11], and documentary evidence, [Filing No. 12].
This Order screens the construed Amended Complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 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. 10 at 2.] This
section discusses what constitutes a failure of consideration
and contains quoted material from various court cases and
legal treatises. [Filing No. 10 at 3-5.] Although
not entirely clear, it appears that in the next section,
“Motion Rebuttal, ” Mr. Fowler alleges that he
received an erroneous medical bill. [Filing No. 10 at
6.] In the final section, “Motion Sequester,
” Mr. Fowler states that he spoke with an attorney
about his case. [Filing No. 10 at 7.] Construing the
allegations very liberally, it appears that Mr. Fowler
intended to state that his Complaint was erroneously
dismissed. [Filing No. 10 at 7.]
Construed Amended Complaint suffers from the same defects as
his initial 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. 9 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. 9 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
on the foregoing, Mr. Fowler's Construed Amended
Complaint, , is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. His Motion for Summary Judgment, , is