From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henderson v. State

United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana
Feb 27, 2023
3:22-cv-837 DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2023)

Opinion

3:22-cv-837 DRL-MGG

02-27-2023

MARILYN V. HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF INDIANA et al., Defendants.


OPINION AND ORDER

Daimon R. Leichty, Judge, United States District Court.

Marilyn Henderson, proceeding pro se, sues the State of Indiana and two LaPorte Superior Court employees, Kathy Camby and Heather Stevens. She alleges Ms. Camby and Ms. Stevens discriminated against her based on her race while filing her state cause of action in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [ECF 4]. The court construed Ms. Henderson's amended motion for an emergency hearing as her federal complaint. She moved to proceed in forma pauperis; however, her complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim. The court took her motion under advisement and afforded her leave to amend her complaint. Her amended pleading deadline was extended twice to February 13, 2023. She was cautioned that failure to amend her complaint could result in the dismissal of her case. See Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003). As of today, she has not filed an amended complaint.

Accordingly, the court DENIES Ms. Henderson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF 2] and DISMISSES her case as abandoned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Henderson v. State

United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana
Feb 27, 2023
3:22-cv-837 DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2023)
Case details for

Henderson v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARILYN V. HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF INDIANA et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana

Date published: Feb 27, 2023

Citations

3:22-cv-837 DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2023)