The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RODOLFO ANTONIO LOPEZ JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-41-PPS-MGG
THE PEOPLE,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Rodolfo Antonio Lopez Jr. is incarcerated and representing himself. His
complaint names as the defendant “the People” and accuses them of failing to abide by
the United States Constitution in forcing the Queen of the Kingdom of Hawaii into
signing away the interests of Hawaii over to the United States. (ECF 1 at 2.) He also
complains of them mistreating Puerto Rico. (Id.)
“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). Nevertheless, because Lopez is incarcerated, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action “ (1) is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2)
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2).
Lopez’s complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. First,
in suing the People, Lopez is really suing no one: his complaint does not allege that
anyone in particular is responsible for aggrieving him. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the
pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).
Moreover, his allegations concerning the statehood of Hawaii and the treatment
of Puerto Rico––especially given that he filed the complaint in the Northern District of
Indiana––are out of place (and perhaps out of time). Regardless, he hasn’t alleged any
personal harm and thus lacks standing to sue on this issue. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136
S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016) (citations omitted) (“Our cases have
established that the ‘irreducible constitutional minimum’ of standing consists of three
elements. The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly
traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision. The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal
jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these elements. Where, as here, a case is at
the pleading stage, the plaintiff must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each
element.”).
In addition to geopolitical issues, Lopez claims that the People have conspired
against him and “have targeted Mr. Lopez on various occasions and involving a
multitude of incidents since 2004. The conspiracy by the Government started under the
Bush administration while the Plaintiff was serving in active military status in a time of
war. Since then every presidential administration has continued the conspiracy in
targeting Mr. Lopez.” (ECF 1 at 1.) These latter allegations are equally devoid of any
detail as the rest of the complaint, but they have some semblance of a different suit he
filed in this district where he challenged the Veterans Administration’s denial of his
disability benefits. See Lopez v. Veterans Affairs, Ind. N.D. Case No. 3:19-cv-506-RLM
(dismissed on Jan. 9, 2020). In that case, the court dealt with Lopez’s allegations, finding
that they were brought in the wrong jurisdiction. See id., ECF 8.
One final matter: Lopez’s complaint also names another person as a plaintiff -
Taylor A. Swift, who did not sign the complaint and there’s nothing to suggest that she
even knows about it. Since Lopez is not a lawyer, he may not litigate on behalf of
someone else. Malone v. Nielson, 474 F.3d 934, 937 (7th Cir. 2007); Navin v. Park Ridge Sch.
Dist. 64, 270 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 2001); Nowicki v. Ullsvik, 69 F.3d 1320, 1325 (7th
Cir. 1995). Therefore, I must dismiss Swift from this case.
For these reasons, I:
(1) DISMISS Taylor A. Swift from this case; and
(2) DISMISS Rodolfo Antonio Lopez Jr.’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: January 16, 2020.
/s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT