UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

JOSEPH C. LEHMAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE 

INDIANA ELECTORAL COMMISSION, 

 Defendants. 

 Case No.: 3:16-CV-458-JVB-CAN 

OPINION AND ORDER 

A. Background 

 On February 19, 2014, the Indiana Supreme Court suspended Joseph C. Lehman from the 

practice of law, effective April 3, 2014. In re Lehman, No. 20S00-1507-DI-431, 2016 WL 

3997601, at *1 (Ind. July 21, 2016). 

Lehman, pro se, filed a complaint on July 13, 2016, asking this Court to order the Indiana 

Electoral Commission to place his name on the upcoming general election ballot as the 

Democratic candidate for Elkhart Circuit Court judge. (Compl., DE 1.) Lehman also asked to 

proceed in forma pauperis. (Pet., DE 2.) One week later, on July 21, 2016, the Indiana Supreme 

Court disbarred Lehman. In re Lehman, 2016 WL 3997601, at *2. 

B. Law 

 District courts may screen complaints, including those filed by pro se non-prisoners 

seeking leave to proceed without pre-payment of fees and costs. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 

783 (7th Cir. 1999). District courts may screen complaints prior to service on defendants, and 
2 

must dismiss complaints that are frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

 A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 

504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke 

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 

 A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the 

claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). The 

court must view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept the factual 

allegations as true, and resolve doubts in his favor. See Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex. Hosp., 425 

U.S. 738, 740 (1976); see also Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). The court must 

construe a pro se plaintiff’s allegations liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972). 

C. Discussion 

 Lehman wants to be placed on the ballot as the Democratic candidate for Elkhart Circuit 

Court judge. But, to borrow from General Sherman, if nominated Lehman cannot run, and if 

elected he cannot serve. 

Disbarred by the Indiana Supreme Court, Lehman is ineligible to be the Elkhart Circuit 

Court judge. Article 7, § 7 of the Indiana Constitution provides that a Circuit judge “shall have 

been duly admitted to practice law by the Supreme Court of Indiana . . . .” 
3 

 Since Lehman is disbarred and therefore cannot serve in the position for which he seeks 

election, his complaint is moot. Indeed, the Indiana Supreme Court had suspended him from the 

practice of law in Indiana even before he filed this complaint. 

Accordingly, Lehman can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle 

him to relief. 

D. Conclusion

 Therefore, the Court DENIES the Petition (DE 2) and DISMISSES the Complaint (DE 1) 

as moot, with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED on August 8, 2016. 

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE