Opinion
1:05-cv-1836-SEB-VSS.
January 6, 2006
ENTRY CONCERNING SELECTED MATTERS
The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are pending, makes the following rulings:
1. The plaintiff shall have through January 30, 2006, in which to re-submit materials supporting any request to proceed in forma pauperis made in this case.
2. The plaintiff seeks the court's intervention in one or more criminal prosecutions in which the plaintiff is a defendant in the Indiana state courts. Clearly, of course, the plaintiff's request for his release from confinement cannot be obtained or even considered in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2005); Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that habeas is the proper vehicle for presenting a claim "if but only if the prisoner is seeking to `get out' of custody in a meaningful sense."). The plaintiff also seeks reform of public defender system in place in Marion County. He does so based on his dissatisfaction with the representation he is receiving in one or more of the pending cases. This claim thus arises from the ongoing dynamics of these pending cases and the complaint presents no basis on which this court could intervene in those cases in the manner requested. Some individuals or entities are named as defendants which have no discernible connection with the relief sought by the plaintiff, so any claim against them presents a non-issue.
3. A plaintiff can "plead himself out of court by pleading facts that undermine the allegations set forth in his complaint." Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 846 (7th Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted). That is what has occurred here. Accordingly, the action is dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.