Opinion
NO. 2:11-CV-382.
November 1, 2011
OPINION AND ORDER
David Frohwerk, a pro se prisoner, filed a case-initiating document labeled, "Motion for Attachment Lien and Bond Hearing." (DE 1.) For the reasons set forth below, this action is DISMISSED as frivolous and malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
pro se Id. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A28 U.S.C. § 1915A12Lagerstrom v. Kingston463 F.3d 621624
To survive dismissal, a complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). "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." Id. at 603. Thus, 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 her that might be redressed by the law." Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original). The court must bear in mind, however, that "[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
This action is frivolous. Frohwerk is not entitled to place a "lien" on the correctional facility, since he does not have a judgment against the facility. See generally IND. CODE § 34-55-9-2. To the extent Frohwerk is attempting to challenge the conditions of his confinement at Westville, he already has a case pending in which he raises these same allegations. See Frohwerk v. Lemmon, et al., No. 2:11-CV-221-PS (N.D. Ind. filed June 24, 2011.) It is malicious for Frohwerk to file multiple suits based on the same set of facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109 (7th Cir. 2003) (suit is "malicious" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A if it is intended to harass or is otherwise abusive of the judicial process); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993) (it is malicious for a plaintiff with in forma pauperis status to file a lawsuit that duplicates allegations of another pending lawsuit). Accordingly, this case must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this action is DISMISSED as frivolous and malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.