LOPEZ-CHINCHILLA v. STATE OF INDIANA ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION JORGE LOPEZ-CHINCHILLA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:22-cv-00540-JPH-MG ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Defendant. ) Order Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Without Prejudice and Directing Filing of Complaint Jorge Lopez-Chinchilla submitted a motion for relief from Judgment or Order along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. These motions were filed in a newly opened civil action. For the reasons explained below, this civil action shall proceed only if Mr. Lopez-Chinchilla files a complaint and contemporaneously pays the $402.00 filing fee or supplements his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by providing a copy of his inmate trust account statement. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. I. Filing Fee Mr. Lopez-Chinchilla's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is denied without prejudice because he failed to support his motion with a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement for the six months preceding the filing of this action on November 21, 2022. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) ("A prisoner seeking to bring a civil action . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefore . . . shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint . . . , obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined."). II. Complaint In addition, except for a situation not applicable here,1 the only way to commence an action in federal court is by filing a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 ("A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court."); see also Farzana K. v. Ind. Dep't of Ed., 473 F.3d 703, 706 (7th Cir. 2007) ("Litigation in federal court commences with the filing of the complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 3."); In re Allied Signal Corp., 915 F.2d 190, 192 (6th Cir. 1990) ("[A]n action is commenced with the filing of a complaint rather than a motion"). Mr. Lopez-Chinchilla has not filed a complaint. He has filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 challenging a state small-claims court judgment that was entered in July 2018.2 Dkt. 1. This motion is not a proper way to commence a federal court action. If Mr. Lopez-Chinchilla wishes to file a lawsuit, he must file a complaint, and in doing so he shall be guided by the following: (a) the complaint shall comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that pleadings contain "a short and plaint statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction"3 and a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that 1 "An Administrative Procedure Act action can be deemed commenced when the plaintiff files a miscellaneous motion seeking testimony and documents." 4 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 4 Federal Practice & Procedure Civil § 1052 (4th ed. April 2022 Update). 2 The Court takes judicial notice of the docket in Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Lopez Chinchilla, No. 20D05-1803-SC-001248 (Elkhart Superior Court, Small Claims). In that case, Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) filed a small-claims court claim against Mr. Lopez- Chinchilla, alleging that he damaged a utility pole when he negligently drove off the road. Id., Docket Entry for March 13, 2018. In July 2018, Mr. Lopez-Chinchilla executed an Agreed Judgment/Confession of Judgment, and the court entered judgment against him for $2,781.62. Id., Docket Entries for July 24, 2018. 3 On this point, the Court notes that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine "prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers challenging state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced." Brown v. Bowman, 668 F.3d 437, 442 (7th Cir.2012) (cleaned up). "Rooker-Feldman bars federal claims in two instances. The first involves a plaintiff's request of a federal district court to overturn an adverse state court judgment. The second, and more difficult instance, involves federal claims that were not raised in state court or do not on their face require review of a state court's decision. In this latter instance, Rooker–Feldman will act as a jurisdictional bar if those claims are inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment." Id. (cleaned up). the pleader is entitled to relief"; (b) the complaint shall comply with the requirement of Rule 10(b) that the allegations in a complaint be made in numbered paragraphs, each of which should recite, as far as practicable, only a single set of circumstances; (c) the complaint must identify what legal injury he claims to have suffered and what persons are responsible for each such legal injury; and (d) the complaint shall contain a clear statement of the relief which is sought. If a complaint is submitted as directed in the preceding paragraph, Mr. Lopez-Chinchilla should place the above cause number on it and the Court will direct its further processing as warranted. II. Conclusion Mr. Lopez-Chinchillla's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated in Section I, above. Before Mr. Lopez-Chinchilla may seek relief from this Court he must first file a complaint. If he submits a complaint, he contemporaneously must either pay the $402.00 filing fee or supplement his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by providing a copy of his inmate trust account statement. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Failure to take both steps by January 6, 2023, will result in the dismissal of this action without further warning. SO ORDERED. Date: 12/9/2022 James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: JORGE LOPEZ-CHINCHILLA 251466 PUTNAMVILLE - CF PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 1946 West U.S. Hwy 40 Greencastle, IN 46135