Davidson v. Vanderpool

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

RANDALL K. DAVIDSON, II, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No. 1:22-CV-244-HAB

)

SUPERIOR JUDGE, BENJAMIN )

VANDERPOOL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

In Plaintiff’s own words, he has sued dozens of people “to be free from hate crimes, covert

organized gang stalking, remote neural monitoring, jolts of radiation, synthetic telepathy, civil

extortion and unlawful discrimination on the grounds of his political ideology and religious

beliefs.” (ECF No. 1 at 1-2). He claims that the Defendants killed his father (and many others),

planned and carried out the January 6 insurrection, and “nuke[d]” his “reproductive parts” with

radiation. These are some of the less-fanciful allegations in the complaint. Plaintiff seeks leave to

pursue this action in forma pauperis.

I. IFP Status

Because it appears that Plaintiff qualifies to proceed without the pre-payment of filing fees,

his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. While in forma pauperis status allows a

plaintiff to proceed without pre-payment of the filing fee, Plaintiff remains liable for the full fees.

See Robbins v. Switzer, 104 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir. 1997) (in forma pauperis litigants remain liable

for the filing fee; “all [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(a) does for any litigant is excuse the pre-payment of

fees”). The Court does not have the authority to waive the filing fee, and it remains due despite

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. Fiorito v. Samuels, 2016 WL 3636968, at *5 (C.D. Ill. June

30, 2016) (“[c]ourt does not have the authority to waive a filing fee”); McDaniel v. Meisner, 2015

WL 4773135, at *12 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 12, 2015) (same). The filing fee for in forma pauperis

litigants is $350.00. No payment is due currently; however, the $350.00 balance remains owing.

II. Screening

District courts have an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints

before service on the defendant and must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails

to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief. Dismissal under the in forma pauperis statute is an exercise of the court’s discretion. Denton

v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992). 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 Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To

survive dismissal under federal pleading standards,

[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a

claim to 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). 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).

When screening an IFP complaint, “a court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only

if the alleged facts are ‘clearly baseless,’ a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,’

‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33 (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s complaint

falls into this category. Other than vague references to his “political ideology and religious

beliefs,” Plaintiff does not explain why dozens of people, including one Indiana Supreme Court

Justice, would devote so much time and effort into his remote sterilization among other wrongs.

The allegations are wholly incredible. If Plaintiff wants to pursue these claims, he will have to pay

the filing fee. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 34 (dismissal under the screening statute “does not prejudice

the filing of a paid complaint making the same allegations.”).

This leaves the question of whether Plaintiff should be given the right to replead. See

Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Without at least an

opportunity to amend or to respond to an order to show cause, an [in forma pauperis] applicant’s

case could be tossed out of court without giving the applicant any timely notice or opportunity to

be heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend.”). While the Court is generally

inclined to give pro se plaintiffs considerable leeway, and nearly always grants at least one

opportunity to amend, the Court sees no reason to do so here. The allegations in the complaint are

frivolous no matter how they are drafted. No amendment will fix the problems with Plaintiff’s

complaint, leaving amendment a useless exercise.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2)

is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED on August 3, 2022.

s/ Holly A. Brady

JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT