Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fishbein v. Doe

January 4, 2012

FISHBEIN
v.
DOE



Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Court denies Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis [4] and dismisses this lawsuit in its entirety. Civil case terminated.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

On January 3, 2012, pro se Plaintiff Julius Fishbein filed the present Complaint against Defendants Walter Doe and Irma Doe. Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in lieu of paying the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses this lawsuit in its entirety.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must look beyond Plaintiff's financial status and review his claims to determine whether the action he alleges is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or if the action seeks damages from a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). In addition, federal courts my raise, sua sponte, the court's subject matter jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings. See Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 2008).

Continued...

Courtroom Deputy KF

Initials:

ANALYSIS

Construing pro se Plaintiff's allegations liberally, see Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011), Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights have been violated because his neighbor, Walter, and his girlfriend, presumably Irma, are both troublemakers and fabricated the story that Plaintiff's dog tried to bite Irma. Plaintiff further alleges that this is a false statement and seeks ten thousand dollars in damages.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff has failed to state a constitutional claim. Instead, Plaintiff is alleging a defamation claim based on Defendants' alleged false statement that his dog tried to bite Irma. To establish a defamation claim under Illinois law, "a plaintiff must present facts that a defendant made a false statement about a plaintiff, the defendant made an unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party, and that this publication caused ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.