UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SANDRA L. JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CV-413-TLS

)

SALLIE MAE, and DEPARTMENT OF )

EDUCATION, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Sandra L. Johnson, a Plaintiff proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against Defendants

Sallie Mae and the Department of Education. She also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in

forma pauperis. On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion, dismissed the

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and granted the Plaintiff additional time to

amend her Complaint, accompanied either by the statutory filing fee or another Petition to

Proceed Without Pre-Payment of Fees and Costs. The Court directed that an amendment should

follow the instructions outlined in the Court’s Opinion and Order, and stated on the Civil

Complaint Form located on the Northern District of Indiana website at

http://www.innd.uscourts.gov/forms/ProSeForms.

On October 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 4], and a

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 5]. The Amended Complaint is not on the Civil

Complaint Form used in this district. Neither does it otherwise provide the necessary facts to

provide the Defendants with “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests,” EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776–77 (7th Cir. 2007), or“contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

570 (2007)). The Plaintiff’s allegations do not provide any of the salient facts regarding who,

what, when, and how she believes her rights were violated, despite instructions from this Court

to do so. Rather, her Amended Complaint it is a narrative of what the Plaintiff characterizes as

one hundred years of “blatant patterns of abuse against people with disabilities” perpetrated by

Government agencies (Amd. Compl. 1, ECF No. 4), “blatant class warfare and denial of

opportunities to all Americans” (id.), and a “disparate . . . and fundamentally discriminatory”

loan structure (id.). Even though the only Defendants are Sallie Mae and the Department of

Education, a majority of the Amended Complaint is directed to her experiences volunteering as a

Court Appointed Special Advocate and interning at the Gary Human Relations Commission. The

Plaintiff believes she was qualified for employment at these, and other places, but was not hired. 

Finally, the Plaintiff alleges that she obtained a deferment for payment of her student loans, but

that the Department of Education send her loan to a collection agency anyway. The Plaintiff

complains about the collection process, and alleges that threatening letters (the source of the

letters is not identified) and $10,000 of debt were added to her loans every time she requested a

“reasonable accommodation.” (Id. 3.) The Amended Complaint does not identify what

accommodation the Plaintiff requested. 

The Plaintiff has named two Defendants: Sallie Mae and the Department of Education.

There are absolutely no factual allegations to suggest what action Sallie Mae took, or did not

take, that constituted disability discrimination or a failure to provide a reasonable

accommodation. Neither Defendant was responsible for whether unrelated entities offered the

Plaintiff employment after she volunteered her services. The Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the

2
loan collection procedures undertaken by collection agencies do not implicate the Department of

Education and the services it provides. The Amended Complaint does not identify what

accommodation the Plaintiff believes the Department of Education was required to make

because of her disability. “To form a defense, a defendant must know what he is defending

against; that is, he must know the legal wrongs he is alleged to have committed and the factual

allegations that form the core of the claims asserted against him.” Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d

792, 799 (7th Cir. 2011). 

Because the Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies the Court identified in its

September 30, 2016, Opinion and Order, the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not “contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”

Kolbe & Kolbe Health & Wealthfare Benefit Plan v. Med. College of Wis. Inc., 657 F.3d 496,

502 (7th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

and dismiss the Amended Complaint.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 5], and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Amended

Complaint [ECF No. 4]. Any amendment the Plaintiff files must be filed on the Civil Complaint

Form, which is located on the Northern District of Indiana website at

http://www.innd.uscourts.gov/forms/ProSeForms or in the Clerk’s Office.

SO ORDERED on October 31, 2016.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

4