Colbert v. Indiana Gaming Commission and Athletic Division

Opinion

UNITED sTATEs DISTRICT CoURT F I L E D FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLuMB1A

NOV 23 2013

Antonio Colbert, § C|grakrikl:i.l%t|g),lség§::_t:fld

Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. lndiana Gaming Commission/ l Athletic Division, ) Defendant. l ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(e)(2)(B)(ii). Under that statute, the Court is required to dismiss a case "at any time" it determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff lists his address as a Post Office Box in the District of Colurnbia. He sues the lndiana Gaming Commission in lndianapolis, lndiana, for $20 million "in restitution." In his one-paragraph complaint, plaintiff states that he is bringing this action "[p]ursuant to 18 U.S.C., Sec. 224" and he seeks to hold defendant "liable for illegal infractions that took place on the night of 3/3/09!" Plaintiff alleges only that "a professional boxing contest . . . could’ve left me severely injured or dead."

The criminal statute plaintiff invokes proscribes bribery in sporting contests; it does not provide a private cause of action. Furtherrnore, plaintiffs cryptic allegation fails to state a

cognizable claim over which this Court may exercise jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331

(federal question) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity actions). See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (A plaintiffs "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .") (citations omitted); Aktiaselskabet AF 21 . N0v. 2001 v.

Fame Jeans, Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 16 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 20()8) ("[A] complaint needs some information

about the circumstances giving rise to the claims."). Therefore, the complaint will be dismissed.

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

»4~ V/)¢M

Unit’t»d scales District Judg'e

Date: November , 201 l