Prater v. Google, 3:25-cv-00461

Plaintiff Donald Prater filed a pro se complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
Prater did not pay the filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis when filing.
Prater’s complaint alleges that several corporations (including Google, Cash App, PayPal, Samsung, Robin Hood, and Coin Base) improperly shared his information, causing him harm, and that several government organizations failed to investigate his identity theft complaints.
The court found Prater’s pleading did not comply with federal pleading standards and did not establish the court’s jurisdiction.
The court also could not discern any specific or plausible claims based on the facts provided.
The court afforded Prater leave to amend his complaint and resolve his filing fee status by a set deadline, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject matter jurisdiction	Not clearly stated—implies federal question and diversity	Not present	Court finds no basis for jurisdiction in the complaint
Failure to state a claim	Alleges information-sharing and harm	Not present	Court finds complaint fails to state a plausible claim
Compliance with federal pleading standards	None articulated	Not present	Complaint does not meet Rule 8 requirements
Failure to investigate by authorities	Claims civil rights violations through lack of action	Not present	No recourse for lack of investigation by authorities

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se complaints construed liberally, but must still meet basic pleading standards)
Kyle v. Patterson, 196 F.3d 695 (pro se litigants held to procedural rules)
Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761 (courts have authority to dismiss frivolous suits)
McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882 (jurisdictional basis must be stated affirmatively and distinctly)