Opinion
1:21-cv-01468-JPH-MJD
08-27-2021
CHARLES WEINSCHENK, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF INDIANA, VALORIE HAHN Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office, ROBERT BECKER, JOHN DOE, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana
On June 29, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff, Charles Weinschenk's, complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a plausible claim. Dkt. 12. The Court gave Mr. Weinschenk through July 29, 2021, to file an amended complaint. Id. Mr. Weinschenk has filed an amended complaint, dkt. 14-1, but what he has filed does not show why his claims should not be dismissed, dkt. 12 at 4.
Mr. Weinschenk's motion for leave to amend, dkt. [14], is denied as moot.
The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint that is wholly insubstantial. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998). And "[a] frivolous federal law claim cannot successfully invoke federal jurisdiction." In re African-American Slave Descendants Litig., 471 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2006).
While Mr. Weinschenk does mention in passing the Constitution of the United States and several federal statutes, the complaint does not identify a federal cause of action. Even liberally construing the complaint, this Court cannot discern within it any plausible federal claim against any defendant. See Sanders-Bey v. United States, Nos. 07-2204, 07-3891, 267 Fed.Appx. 464, 465 (7th Cir. Feb. 25, 2008) cf. United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003).
Mr. Weinschenk's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. See Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 704-05 (7th Cir. 2011). Defendants' motion to dismiss, dkt. [6], motion for extension of time, dkt. [10], and motion to screen Plaintiffs amended complaint, dkt. [15], are DENIED as moot. Final judgment will issue by separate entry.
On August 20, 2021, Mr. Weinschenk filed a 95-page second amended complaint alleging 1138 claims. Dkt. 17. That amended complaint, filed past the deadline, does not change the Court's analysis.
SO ORDERED.