Hunter Alexander v. John Does, I.R.S., U.S. Postal

Alexander · United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division · April 1, 2026 · No. 1:26-cv-00525-JPH-MJD

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

  1. The allegation that a new currency denomination described as "$000.59³" had been introduced was factually frivolous because it was plainly baseless.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Whether dismissal should be with prejudice without leave to amend.
  4. Whether Alexander was entitled to recruited counsel in light of the wholly meritless claims.
  5. 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 PDF
Loading document…