noting that a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”
How later courts described this case
- noting that a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”
- “Courts have wide discretion to decide whether a litigant is impoverished.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JOSEPH ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 1:26-CV-40-HAB-ALT
DAWN HILL-KEARSE, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Joseph Alexander (“Alexander”) filed a complaint and seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 1, 2). Alexander, who listed his address as being in Washington,
alleges Defendants Dawn Hill-Kearse (“Hill-Kearse”) and Sergio Jimenez (“Jimenez”) “conspired
together and intentionally delayed the calendar of motions, in violation of due process.” (ECF 1).
His complaint does not specify what motions were delayed, which proceedings those motions were
filed in, or how Hill-Kearse and Jimenez delayed them. But the Court need not look far to identify
this filing. Alexander has peppered federal courts across the country in the past month with the
same or a similar devoid-of-fact complaint.1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court “may authorize the commencement [of this appeal]
without pre-payment of fees [if] the person is unable to pay such fees . . ..” A person is unable to
pay the filing fee if “because of his poverty [doing so would result in the inability] to provide
himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335
1 See, e.g., JOSEPH ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. DAWN HILL-KEARSE & SERGIO JIMENEZ, Defendants., No.
5:26-CV-35 (CAR), 2026 WL 474864, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 19, 2026); Alexander v. Hill-Kearse, No. 1:26CV00022,
2026 WL 353616, at *1 (W.D. Va. Feb. 9, 2026); Alexander v. Hill-Kearse, No. 3:26CV00050-ART-CLB, 2026 WL
416055, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2026); Alexander v. Hill-Kearse, No. 26-CV-0040-CVE-JFJ, 2026 WL 208625, at
*2 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 27, 2026).
U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (quotation marks omitted). In a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case, the filing fee
may be waived “if the court determines that such individual has income less than 150 percent of
the income official poverty line. . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1930(f)(1).2 This is not a Bankruptcy case, but
the judicial discretion afforded by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits application of the same threshold. See
Merritte v. Templeton, 493 F. App’x 782, 784 (7th Cir. 2012) (“Courts have wide discretion to
decide whether a litigant is impoverished.”). The Poverty Line is set annually by the United States
Department of Health and Human Services. 42 U.S.C. § 9902.
But “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,” the
Court must dismiss the case if it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Alexander’s financial affidavit states he both makes and spends $1,000 per month and has
only $55 in his bank accounts. (ECF 2). This would mean he financially qualifies to proceed in
forma pauperis. But that is of no moment here because reviewing Alexander’s allegations liberally,
his complaint must be dismissed. As nearly all other courts have indicated, he has invoked no basis
for this Court’s jurisdiction, and he has provided no factual basis to support his legal claim. He
just makes the naked assertion of a legal claim. (ECF 1). That is not enough. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (noting that a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face”). And nothing in the complaint establishes that either
Hill-Kearse or Jimenez are subject to personal jurisdiction in Indiana. No facts suggest either
defendant is from the state and no events have been described that occurred in the state.
2 See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/poverty-guidelines.pdf (150% Poverty Guideline table).
Given these glaring deficiencies and Alexander’s track record of spray-and-pray complaint
filing across the country over the past month, the Court finds the complaint meritless and frivolous.
Amendment would thus be futile. Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chi. & Nw.
Ind., 786 F.3d 510, 519–20 (7th Cir. 2015).
For these reasons, the Court:
(1) DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE; and
(2) DENIES AS MOOT Alexander’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF 2).
SO ORDERED on February 25, 2026.
s/ Holly A. Brady
CHIEF JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT