OKEY v. INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
PHILIP SCOTT OKEY, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-02031-SEB-KMB
)
INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Now before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Require Counsel or Dismiss1 [Dkt.
36]. Plaintiff Phillip Scott Okey, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Defendants
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his due process and equal
protection rights in violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically,
Mr. Okey alleges that Defendants, in arbitrarily enforcing zoning ordinances and
conspiring to intentionally flood the property located at 6220 E. Southport Road in
Indianapolis (the "Property"), have engaged in behavior that "shocks the conscience,"
unfairly singled him out, and effected a taking of his property without just compensation.
However, although Mr. Okey alleges that he is the owner of the Property in question,
1 Although Defendants' motion was filed prior to the Court's granting of Plaintiff's motion to
amend his complaint and was thus directed at the original complaint filed in this action,
Defendants made clear in their briefing that their arguments in support of dismissal applied
equally to Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, which is now the operative complaint.
Because Plaintiff had an opportunity in two sur-replies to fully respond to Defendants' arguments
directed at his proposed amended complaint, no additional briefing of Defendants' motion is
necessary.
Case 1:25-cv-02031-SEB-KMB Document 82 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
public records of which we are permitted to take judicial notice establish that the owner
of the Property is not Mr. Okey, but Plump Monkey Farm LLC ("Plump Monkey Farm"),
a separate legal entity.
In support of dismissal, Defendants argue that, as currently pled, the constitutional
claims alleged by Mr. Okey in the amended complaint are all based on actions allegedly
taken against Property that is owned solely by Plump Monkey Farm, not by Mr. Okey in
his individual capacity. Mr. Okey also appears to challenge in this lawsuit past and
present ordinance violation proceedings against the Property brought in state court, all of
which proceedings were asserted against Plump Monkey Farm, as the owner of the
Property, not against Mr. Okey as an individual. We agree with Defendants that, to the
extent that Mr. Okey is attempting to bring these claims on behalf of Plump Monkey
Farm and to represent the LLC pro se, he is not permitted to do so as Seventh Circuit law
is clear that LLCs are entitled to litigate in federal court only when represented by an
attorney. See 1756 W. Lake Street LLC v. Am. Chartered Bank, 787 F.3d 383, 385 (7th
Cir. 2015) ("[A] limited liability company, like a corporation, cannot litigate pro se or be
represented in the litigation by a nonlawyer.").
Mr. Okey maintains that he is not attempting to represent Plump Monkey Farm but
instead is pursuing his constitutional claims individually based on his "interest in the
[P]roperty as sole member of the LLC," an interest which he claims is confirmed by the
"property card," (Dkt. 44 at ¶¶ 2–3). However, the property card lists the owner of the
Property as "PLUMP MONKEY FARM LLC" and contains no reference to Phillip Okey
or his interest in either the LLC or the Property. See Dkt. 37. Thus, insofar as Mr. Okey
Case 1:25-cv-02031-SEB-KMB Document 82 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
is alleging claims based on his ownership of the Property, he cannot pursue such claims
individually given that he does not own the Property and that "a plaintiff generally must
assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relieve on the legal
rights or interests of third parties." See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). To the
extent that Mr. Okey seeks to vindicate a cognizable property interest he may have in the
Property apart from ownership, he has not adequately developed such theories in the
amended complaint.
For these reasons, Defendants' Motion to Require Counsel or Dismiss is
GRANTED and Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
We hereby provide Plaintiff an opportunity to file a second amended complaint that
resolves the deficiencies cited in this entry, if possible. If Plaintiff chooses to file a new
complaint, he must include sufficient facts in the complaint to support a plausible
inference that Defendants have caused him personally a legally cognizable injury apart
from any injury Plump Monkey Farm as the owner of the Property may have suffered.
Alternatively, if Plump Monkey Farm is the real party in interest, to proceed, Plump
Monkey Farm must obtain an attorney and have that attorney enter his or her appearance
to represent it in this matter. If no new complaint is filed within twenty-one (21) days
of the date of this order, we will dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice, meaning, it will
be over for good.
Finally, Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. 58], Motion
for Expedited Ruling on Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Status Report
[Dkt. 66], Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. 67], and Supplemental
Case 1:25-cv-02031-SEB-KMB Document 82 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. 76] are all DENIED. As Plaintiff
has previously been instructed, we are unable to provide the relief he requests because the
injunctive relief he seeks relates to administrative proceedings that have been brought
against Plump Monkey Farm as the sole owner of the Property, not against Mr. Okey as
an individual.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	_______________________	2/25/2026_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Case 1:25-cv-02031-SEB-KMB Document 82 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Distribution:
PHILIP SCOTT OKEY
6220 E. Southport Rd.
Southport, IN 46237
Conor Lee Delehanty
Hoover Hull Turner, LLC
cdelehanty@hooverhullturner.com
Riley H. Floyd
Hoover Hull Turner LLP
rfloyd@hooverhullturner.com
Mathew Rayman
OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
mathew.rayman2@indy.gov
Case 1:25-cv-02031-SEB-KMB Document 82 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>