“District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense”
How later courts described this case
- “District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PAT MAYS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-1131-SMY
)
LEWIS AND CLARK COMMUNITY )
COLLEGE, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Pat Mays filed this pro se action against Defendant Lewis and Clark Community
College, claiming the college denied him access to his personal employment and medical records.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. 4) and motion for service
of process at government expense (Doc. 5) are now before the Court. For the following reasons,
the motions are DENIED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an indigent party may commence a federal court action without
paying required costs and fees upon submission of an affidavit asserting the inability “to pay such
fees or give security therefor” and stating “the nature of the action, defense or appeal and the
affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). May has
demonstrated his indigence and inability to pay the costs of commencing his lawsuit through his
motion and accompanying affidavit. However, the Court’s inquiry does not end with a
determination of indigency.
Section 1915(e)(2) requires careful threshold scrutiny of a Complaint filed by a plaintiff
seeking to proceed IFP. The Court may dismiss a case if it determines the action is clearly
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or is a claim for money damages against an immune
defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir.
2003) (“District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits
spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense”).
Mays alleges that on March 20, 2024, Defendant denied him access to his personal
employment file. On April 3, 2024, he formally requested a copy of his workplace injury and
other medical records. When Mays received the file, he discovered a fraudulent conduct workplace
reprimand had been placed in it. Mays seeks back pay, reinstatement to his former position, costs
of litigation, and money damages.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As such, to proceed in federal court, Mays
must establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, which is ordinarily accomplished
through federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. Mays’ Complaint does not state a claim under federal laws, nor has he alleged
diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED with prejudice and the
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) and the motion for service of process at government
expense (Doc. 5) are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 22, 2025 Aes KL Coole
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Page 2 of 2