IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

WAYNE ALLEN FENDER, )

DONNA MARIE PULOUS, )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 4:15-cv-91

 )

DEBORAH APPLE, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Petition to Proceed

Without Pre-Payment of Fees or Costs, filed by pro se Plaintiff,

Wayne Fender, on October 16, 2015 (DE #2); and the Motion to

Proceed in Forma Pauperis, filed by pro se Plaintiff, Donna Pulous,

on September 9, 2016 (DE #7). For the reasons set forth below, the

motions (DE ##2, 7) are both DENIED and the amended complaint (DE

#5) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B). 

The two plaintiffs in this case, Wayne Fender and Donna

Pulous, filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

October 16, 2015 (DE #2). With regard to pro se Plaintiffs’

request to proceed IFP, the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1915,

allows an indigent plaintiff to commence a civil action without

prepaying the administrative costs (e.g. filing fee) of the action.

See 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(1); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 27 (1992). When presented with an IFP application, the

district court makes two determinations: (1) whether the suit has

sufficient merit; and (2) whether the plaintiff’s poverty level

justifies IFP status. See 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2); Denton,

504 U.S. at 27; Smith-Bey v. Hosp. Adm’r, 841 F.2d 751, 757 (7th

Cir. 1988). If a court finds that the suit lacks sufficient merit

or that an inadequate showing of poverty exists, the court must

deny the in forma pauperis application. See Smith-Bey, 841 F.2d at

757.

District courts have the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

to screen complaints before service of the complaint on the

defendants, and must dismiss the complaint if it fails to state a

claim. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999). Courts

apply the same standard under section 1915(e)(2)(B) as when

addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d

1014, 1018, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013). 

In a lengthy order dated May 25, 2016, this Court noted that

only Fender filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. The

form specifically states “[i]f there is more than one plaintiff,

each of you must complete a separate form.” (AO 239.) As such,

this Court ordered Pulous to file a petition to proceed without

pre-payment of fees and costs. Pulous filed a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on September 9, 2016 (DE #7). The

2
financial prong has been met; however, the Court finds the suit

does not have sufficient merit to continue.

Plaintiffs originally filed a complaint on October 16, 2015

(DE #1). This Court struck the complaint, finding it was difficult

to understand and discern the causes of action, it contained a

laundry list of laws which were violated without specifying in a

straightforward manner the factual legal basis for each claim; and

that ultimately, it did not satisfy the requirements of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).1 (DE #4 at 2-5.) The Court

granted Plaintiffs leave “to file a single amended complaint which

complies with the requirements of Rule 8.” (DE #4 at 3.) 

Moreover, the Court cautioned Plaintiffs that the amended complaint

needed to contain a short and plain statement of what happened to

Plaintiffs to give rise to their claims, and that they should state

when the events occurred and clearly explain how each defendant was

involved with each claim they are raising against that defendant. 

(DE #4 at 3-4.) The Court also cited case law to Plaintiffs,

stating the amended complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

1

 Plaintiffs have been informed of Rule 8's requirements multiple times

in their multiple filings. Plaintiffs filed similar complaints in two other

matters that were consolidated before this Court, Fender v. Sailors, No. 4:14-

cv-61, 2015 WL 1510195, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2015). This Court dismissed

the federal claims with prejudice in that case. Fender v. Peters, 4:14-cv2016 WL 1222247, at *8 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2016). Additionally, Plaintiffs

filed another similar complaint which is in front of Judge Theresa Springmann,

4:16-cv-0040, which was dismissed without prejudice and Plaintiffs were

granted time to file an amended complaint which complies with Rule 8 and the

federal notice pleading standards. 

3
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Finally,

the Court warned Plaintiffs that “if the allegations in the amended

complaint do not comply with Rule 8 and the other requirements set

forth in this order, the amended complaint will be dismissed with

prejudice.” (DE #4 at 5.) 

The amended complaint, filed on June 13, 2016, has a section

entitled “cause(s) of action with supporting facts” and Plaintiffs

listed the following:

1. Child endangerment

2. Religious bias & anti-semitism

3. Open discriminatory practices

4. Human, civil & constitutional rights violations

5. Collusion and conspiracy

6. Perjury

7. Intentional harm to a child through improper diet

8. Malice

9. Terroristic Threats upon family (esp. against father)

* See paper work.

(DE #5 at 2.) Plaintiffs then attached 34 pages of confusing

statements and jumbled facts. 

A plaintiff is required to include allegations in the

complaint that “plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to

relief, raising that possibility above a ‘speculative level’” and,

“if they do not, the plaintiff pleads itself out of court.” 

4
E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th

Cir. 2007) (quoting in part Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569 n. 14 (2007)).

“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the

allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks, ellipsis, citations and

footnote omitted). Thus, a “plaintiff must do better than putting

a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader,

might suggest that something has happened to her that might be

redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400,

403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original).

The Court notes that Plaintiffs are appearing pro se in this

matter. Generally, although “pro se litigants are masters of their

own complaints” and “[d]istrict judges have no obligation to act as

counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants,” Myles v. United States,

416 F.3d 551, 552 (7th Cir. 2005), a document filed pro se is to be

liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

(2007). However, even pro se plaintiffs must “make their pleadings

straightforward so that judges and adverse parties need not try to

fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.” United States ex rel.

Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003). 

They must “be presented with clarity sufficient to avoid requiring

5
a district court or opposing party to forever sift through its

pages . . . .” Jennings v. Emry, 910 F.2d 1434, 1436 (7th Cir.

1990). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that

complaints contain a “short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Vicom, Inc.

v. Harbridge Merchant Servs., Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775-76 (7th Cir.

1994) (“A complaint that is prolix and/or confusing makes it

difficult for the defendant to file a responsive pleading and makes

it difficult for the trial court to conduct orderly litigation.”).

In sum, Rule 8 requires a complaint to be presented with

“intelligibility sufficient for a court or opposing party to

understand whether a valid claim is alleged and if so what it is.” 

Vicom, 20 F.3d at 775. 

In this case, despite this Court’s previous warning and

allowance of one amended complaint, Plaintiffs have still failed to

connect relevant facts to recognizable civil causes of action. 

While Plaintiffs have recited lists after the defendants, they have

not presented any relevant facts in a way that would intelligibly

connect any of their recited examples of alleged wrongdoings of the

defendants to recognizable causes of action. Plaintiffs have not

satisfied the federal notice pleading standards in accordance with

Rule 8.

Where a “lack of organization and basic coherence renders a

complaint too confusing to determine the facts that constitute the

6
alleged wrongful conduct, dismissal is an appropriate remedy.” 

Standard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011) (upholding

court’s decision to dismiss the case with prejudice). Moreover,

due to the number of times Plaintiffs have made similar allegations

in other cases without success, any additional amendment in this

case would be futile. Id. at 797; see also Holland v. CEO

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-5-TLS-PRC, 2014 WL

2617145, at *4 (N.D. Ind. June 12, 2014) (denying motion for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing complaint with

prejudice). 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the motions

to proceed in forma pauperis (DE ##2, 7) and DISMISSES the amended

complaint (DE #5) WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B). 

DATED: October 19, 2016 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

7