MICKLES v. INTERNATIONAL -CUSTOMS FEDERICO DEGETAU

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedDecember 2, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-00521
StatusUnknown

This text of MICKLES v. INTERNATIONAL -CUSTOMS FEDERICO DEGETAU (MICKLES v. INTERNATIONAL -CUSTOMS FEDERICO DEGETAU) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
MICKLES v. INTERNATIONAL -CUSTOMS FEDERICO DEGETAU, (S.D. Ind. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

TERRELL MICKLES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:22-cv-00521-JPH-MJD ) INTERNATIONAL -CUSTOMS FEDERICO ) DEGETAU, ) TAX DIVISION OF SAN JUAN, PUERTO ) RICO, ) MONGOLA, CHINA, ) WESTMINDE, LONDON, ) JOHANESSBURG, SOUTH AFRICA, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Plaintiff, Terrell Mickles, filed this case on November 16, 2022. Dkt. 1. His allegations are impossible to discern. See, e.g., id. at 1 ("MDK (Akin-Ford) by Indian countries on, E.R.I.S.A. Bush . . . [Sri Lanka, India-Madrid Spain"); id. at 2 ("Indiana U.S. Marshal ex-ray magnetmeter geo-political parties of India."). The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint that is wholly insubstantial. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998). And "[a] frivolous federal law claim cannot successfully invoke federal jurisdiction." In re African-American Slave Descendants Litig., 471 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2006). While Plaintiff does mention in passing several federal statutes, see, e.g., dkt. 1 at 1 ("E.R.I.S.A.", "42 USCS 2000E"), the complaint does not identify a federal cause of action. Even liberally construing the complaint, this Court cannot discern within it any plausible federal claim against any defendant. See Sanders-Bey v. United States, 267 F. Appx. 464, 465 (7th Cir. 2008) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a complaint that "appear|ed] to simply reference a panoply of random federal laws"); cf. United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed- Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003) ("Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.").! The Court thus DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Ezike v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 08- 2139, 2009 WL 247838, at *3 (7th Cir. Feb. 3, 2009). Final judgment will issue in a separate entry. SO ORDERED. Date: 12/2/2022 Sjamu Patrick hawlove James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Distribution: Southern District of Indiana TERRELL MICKLES 11733-003 TERRE HAUTE - FCI TERRE HAUTE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. BOX 33 TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808

1 On November 28, 2022, Chief Judge Pratt sanctioned Plaintiff for his "pattern of abusive and repetitive litigation" in this Court, his disregard of the Court's warnings of impending sanctions, and his failure to pay any filing fees. In re Terrell Mickles, No. 1:22-mc-00072-TWP (S.D. Ind. Nov. 28, 2022).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MICKLES v. INTERNATIONAL -CUSTOMS FEDERICO DEGETAU, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mickles-v-international-customs-federico-degetau-insd-2022.