Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana grants Hunter Alexander leave to proceed in forma pauperis subject to an initial partial filing fee of $18.32. The court dismisses the complaint with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, denies the motion for recruited counsel, and warns that the dismissal may count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court also warns Alexander that continued frivolous filings may result in filing restrictions or monetary sanctions.
Holdings
- The allegation that a new currency denomination described as "$000.59³" had been introduced was factually frivolous because it was plainly baseless.
- The allegations that incarceration impeded Alexander's ability to file tax records or maintain business records failed to state a claim against the IRS or Postal Service because the complaint did not allege that either defendant was involved in the alleged deprivation.
- Dismissal with prejudice without an opportunity to amend or show cause was proper because there was no chance Alexander could amend the complaint to state a viable claim based on the allegations presented.
- The motion for recruited counsel was denied because the case was wholly meritless and it was not in the interest of justice to recruit counsel.
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it rested in part on an allegation of a nonexistent currency denomination.
- Whether the allegations concerning difficulty filing tax records and maintaining business records stated a claim against the IRS or Postal Service where the complaint did not allege their personal involvement in the asserted deprivation.
- Whether dismissal should be with prejudice without leave to amend.
- Whether Alexander was entitled to recruited counsel in light of the wholly meritless claims.
- Whether the court should warn Alexander that the dismissal may constitute a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that continued frivolous filings could result in filing restrictions or monetary sanctions.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (22)
- Alexander v. Does, Car Makers, No. 1:26-cv-00528-JMS-KMB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 18, 2026)(cited)
- Alexander v. Does (old electrical in HUMS, septic in dirt, water lines in dirt), No. 1:26-cv-00521-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind. Mar. 18, 2026)(cited)
- Alexander v. John Does (Microwave, Stove, Prop[a]ne, LLC), No. 1:26-cv-523-MPB-MG (S.D. Ind. Mar. 18, 2026)(cited)
- Alexander v. John Does, Trash Companies, EPA, No. 1:26-cv-00526-JRS-KMB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 18, 2026)(cited)
- Alexander v. John Doe, Gas Stations, No. 1:26-cv-00531-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2026)(cited)
- Whitaker v. Dempsey, 83 F.4th 1059, 1061 (7th Cir. 2023)(cited)
- Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020)(cited)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(cited)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(cited)
- Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 22.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…