KENDRICK v. PROCTOR

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DE'ANDRE L. KENDRICK, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-02605-JPH-CSW
)
ATALAYA PROCTOR, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF
FINAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiff De'Andre Kendrick is a prisoner at Westville Correctional Facility.
He filed this civil action about incidents that allegedly occurred at New Castle
Correctional Facility, so the case was transferred from the Northern District to
this Court. Dkt. 5. Because Mr. Kendrick is incarcerated, this Court must screen
the complaint before service on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
I. 	Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Mr. Kendrick's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [3], is denied.
Mr. Kendrick is a prisoner who has, while a prisoner, filed at least three suits
or appeals which have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to
state a claim. This renders him ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). The narrow exception to the barrier created by § 1915(g),
where a prisoner alleges that he "is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury," does not apply to the claims or allegations in the complaint.
In Evans v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 150 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 1998),
it was noted that a prisoner-litigant in these circumstances is entitled to know
Case 1:25-cv-02605-JPH-CSW Document 10 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
the cases the Court relies on when making the three-strikes determination. For
Mr. Kendrick's reference, the cases on which the Court relies in finding three
"strikes" consist of the following:
• 	Kendrick v. United Cannabis Corporation, 2:25-cv-00511-GSL-JEM
(N.D. Ind. Nov. 26, 2025) 	(dismissing action as frivolous under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b));
• 	Kendrick v. CNN Inc. et al., 2:25-cv-00513-PPS-APR (N.D. Ind. Dec.
1, 2025) (dismissed action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b));
and
• 	Kendrick v. Ward, et al., 3:25-cv-00867-TLS-APR (N.D. Ind. Oct. 27,
2025) (dismissing 	action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)).
Thus, Mr. Kendrick must pay the $405.00 when able.
I. Screening Standard
When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To
determine whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same
standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020).
Under that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
Case 1:25-cv-02605-JPH-CSW Document 10 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The
Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to a "less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720
(7th Cir. 2017).
II. The Complaint
Mr. Kendrick names one defendant, Atalaya Proctor, and seeks monetary
damages.
Although a Court must accept a plaintiff's allegations as true if it is
assessing whether a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim,
"a dismissal for frivolousness under § 1915 (the IFP statute) does not require a
judge to accept fantastic or delusional factual allegations." Holland v. City of
Gary, 503 F. App'x 476, 477 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327−28 (1989), Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 774 (7th
Cir. 2002)). The Court summarizes the allegations in Mr. Kendrick's incredible
complaint.
According to the complaint, Mr. Kendrick and Ms. Proctor were in a
romantic relationship beginning in the 1990s when he went by the name King
Zay Zay and Xavier. Their relationship soured when Ms. Proctor was "introduced
to a[n] uncontrolled situation dealing with aliens[.]" Dkt. 2 at 2. Ms. Proctor and
other women engaged in relationships with the aliens in order to mislead the CIA
and FBI. Mr. Kendrick alleges that Ms. Proctor drugged him and forced him to
Case 1:25-cv-02605-JPH-CSW Document 10 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
have a sexual relationship with him at New Castle Correctional Facility in 2018
and 2019, and she announced over an intercom system that she owned him.
III. Dismissal of Complaint
Applying the screening standard to the facts alleged in the complaint, the
complaint must be dismissed as frivolous.
A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when it "lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An
allegation is factually frivolous when it is "clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic,
delusional, irrational, or wholly incredible." Felton v. City of Chicago, 827 F.3d
632, 635 (7th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up).
Mr. Kendrick's allegations that the defendant forced him into a sexual
relationship due to pressure from aliens is factually frivolous.
Further, even if the Court were to assume arguendo that Ms. Proctor was
an employee of New Castle (which he does not allege) who compelled Mr.
Kendrick to engage in a sexual relationship, he alleges that these encounters
occurred 	in 	2018 	and 	2019. 	Claims 	brought 	under 	§ 	1983 	"borrow 	the
limitations period and tolling rules applicable to personal-injury claims under
state law." Devbrow v. Kalu, 705 F.3d 765, 767 (7th Cir. 2013). "The pertinent
Indiana statute of limitations is two years." Id. (citing Ind. Code § 34–11–2–4).
Thus, any potential claim under the Fourteenth Amendment would be dismissed
as time barred. Although untimeliness is an affirmative defense, a complaint can
be dismissed sua sponte if "the existence of a valid affirmative defense is so plain
from 	the 	fact 	of 	the 	complaint 	that 	the 	suit 	can 	be 	regarded 	as
Case 1:25-cv-02605-JPH-CSW Document 10 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
frivolous." Muhammad–Ali v. Final Call, Inc., 832 F.3d 755, 763 (7th Cir. 2016)
(quoting Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009–10 (7th Cir. 2002)).
"The usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be
corrected, especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be
futile." Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2018). "District
courts, however, have broad discretion to deny leave to amend a complaint where
the amendment would be futile." Russell v. Zimmer, Inc., 82 F.4th 564, 572 (7th
Cir. 2023). Because any amendment would be futile, the Court declines to permit
Mr. Kendrick the opportunity to amend his complaint.
IV. Conclusion
Mr. Kendrick's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [3], is
denied because he has incurred three strikes.
Mr. Kendrick's complaint is dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). The clerk is directed to enter final judgment.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
DE'ANDRE L. KENDRICK
167253
WESTVILLE - CF
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Date: 1/5/2026
Case 1:25-cv-02605-JPH-CSW Document 10 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>