Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denies Natalie Gonzalez’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses her complaint against Shantonu Basu. The court finds that the threadbare allegations fail to state a claim and that the substantially identical complaints filed in multiple districts demonstrate malicious filing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Dismissal is ordered without leave to amend.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Gonzalez demonstrated that she was unable to pay the federal filing fee and therefore satisfied the financial threshold for in forma pauperis status.
- Whether the complaint stated a claim for relief under the federal pleading standards and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- Whether the duplicative, same-day filing of materially identical threadbare complaints in multiple courts made the action malicious under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
- Whether dismissal without leave to amend was appropriate because amendment would be futile.
Holdings
- Gonzalez demonstrated that she was unable to pay the filing fee, based on her reported income, assets, and expenses.
- The complaint failed to state a claim because it merely alleged that Basu engaged in ex parte communications and demanded damages, without providing sufficient factual or legal context to give fair notice or raise a right to relief above the speculative level.
- The action was malicious because Gonzalez filed the same threadbare complaint against Basu in multiple federal courts on the same day, indicating an intent to harass the defendant, the courts, or both.
- Dismissal without leave to amend was appropriate because it was clear from the face of the complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise unwarranted.
- The court noted that if Basu was a state-court judge, judicial immunity would bar a damages claim for actions taken in an official judicial role.
Key quotations
“This kind of mass-filing of a threadbare claim is certainly “malicious” in the context of Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) given that it appears “intended to harass.””
“Because Gonzalez has no non-frivolous claim and this action is malicious, the Court will deny her request to proceed IFP and dismiss her case without leave to amend.”
Factual background
Gonzalez alleged only that Basu engaged in ex parte communications and demanded $100,000 in damages, without identifying the factual or legal basis of the claim or explaining why the action belonged in federal court. She reported monthly income of $930, $50 in cash assets, and $800 in monthly expenses, indicating that she could not pay the filing fee. The same threadbare complaint was filed against Basu in several other federal courts on the same day, while Gonzalez listed a South Carolina address and mailed the filings from New York.
Procedural history
Gonzalez filed a complaint alleging only that Basu engaged in ex parte communications and seeking $100,000 in damages, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court found that Gonzalez could not afford the filing fee but that the complaint was both frivolous for failure to state a claim and malicious because it was part of a same-day mass filing of materially identical complaints in multiple federal courts. The court denied the IFP motion and dismissed without leave to amend because amendment would be futile.