Opinion
No. 1:20-cv-03017-JPH-DML
11-19-2020
BRADLEY L. HINES, Plaintiff, v. FAYETTE SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant.
ORDER
I. Granting in forma pauperis status
Mr. Hines' motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is GRANTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). While in forma pauperis status allows Mr. Hines to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, he remains liable for the full fees. Ross v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, 748 F. App'x 64, 65 (7th Cir. 2019) ("Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a district court may allow a litigant to proceed 'without prepayment of fees,' . . . but not without ever paying fees.") (emphasis in original). No payment is due at this time.
II. Screening
A. Screening standard
The Court has the inherent authority to screen Mr. Hines' complaint. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999) ("[D]istrict courts have the power to screen complaints filed by all litigants, prisoners and non-prisoners alike, regardless of fee status."). The Court may dismiss claims within a complaint that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See id. 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 Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). To survive dismissal,
[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). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015).
B. Complaint
Mr. Hines alleges that the Fayette Superior Court never recorded 2006 state proceedings concerning his operator's license and claims that "they were hiding it for some reason." Dkt. 1 at 2, 5. Based on this conduct, he brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging "discrimination" because the Fayette Superior Court "didn't go by Indiana Law" and "broke Rule 25 and the time limitations of Indiana law." Id. at 2. He seeks $75,000 "for having [his] driver[']s license being taken against [his] will." Id. at 6.
C. Analysis
Mr. Hines unsuccessfully brought similar claims in Hines v. Fayette County Superior Court, No. 1:20-cv-02240-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind. Nov. 2, 2020), which Judge Pratt dismissed. These claims face the same fate.
"[S]tates and their agencies are not 'persons' subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Johnson v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 165 F.3d 1140, 1141 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)). Here, the Fayette County Superior Court "is a division of the State of Indiana, so [Mr. Hines'] suit is one against Indiana itself." See King v. Marion Circuit Court, 868 F.3d 589, 591 (7th Cir. 2017). Therefore, because Mr. Hines' has not sued a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he has not brought a plausible federal claim and his complaint must be dismissed. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Mr. Hines shall have through December 21, 2020 to show cause why judgment consistent with this entry should not issue. See Thomas v. Butts, 745 F.3d 309, 313 (7th Cir. 2014) (Court must "first fir[e] a warning shot" before dismissing a complaint).
SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/19/2020
/s/_________
James Patrick Hanlon
United States District Judge
Southern District of Indiana Distribution: BRADLEY L. HINES
611 W. 29th St.
Connersville, IN 47331