Johnson v. Flores, No. 5:2006cv00170 - Document 3 (E.D. Ky. 2006)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED w/o PREJUDICE (2) plf's application to proceed IFP 2 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester. (LKM)cc: COR
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson v. Flores Case 5:06-cv-00170-KSF Document 3 Filed 06/05/2006 Page 1 of 4 Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON DIVISION CNIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-170-KSF MARCUS BOND JOHNSON vs: PLAINTIFF MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MARY CATHERINE FLOWS DEFENDANT Marcus Bond Johnson, a non-prisoner plaintiff, has initiated the instant civil action by submitting a one-page handwritten document [Record No. 11, which the Court construes as a complaint; and a motion to proceed informapauperis, using a financial affidavit form designed for prisoners. The instant plaintiff has now filed more than a dozenpro se civil actions in this Court. In the month of May, 2006, he filed nine of them, all with accompanying requests to proceed informa pauperis on the prisoner affidavit form. This is despite the Court s having repeatedly informed him of the need for his complaint/allegations to meet the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or face dismissal; and also despite the Court s previously having advised him of the impropriety of using the prisoner financial form and each time having provided him with the proper affidavit form for non-prisoners. In the instant case, the plaintiff writes on the financial form that the defendant is Mary Catherine Flores. On the construed complaint he sets out other names used by this defendant, including maiden name ofMary Catherine Johnson; and he charges, Because ofNeglect and Fraud See, e.g., Johnson v. Lexington Legal Bar Association, Lex. No. 03-CV-135-JMH Johnson v Building Under Construction, Lex. No. 04-CV-378-JBC; and Johnson v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, et al., Lex. No. 06-CV-140-JMH. Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:06-cv-00170-KSF Document 3 Filed 06/05/2006 Page 2 of 4 and fact that [Flores] disowned Marcus Bond Johnson in the United State Courts. A pro se complaint is held to less stringent standards than those composed by an attorney and should be construed as alleging all fairly and reasonably inferred claims, Huines v. Kerner, 404 U S . 519, 520 (1972). But Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) still requires a p r o se plaintiffs complaint to include (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court s jurisdiction depends..., (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. A complaint which fails to meet the basic requirements of Rule 8 should be dismissed withoutprejudice. Parkerv. Debuono, 2000WL223841 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Vicom,Inc. v. Hurbridge Merchant Services, 20 F.3d 771, 775 (7th Cir. 1994). This is equally true ofpro se complaints, which may be dismissed suu sponte if they fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8. Owens v. Surer, 2003 WL 942554 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Boswell v. Honorable Governor ofTexus, 138 F.Supp.2d 782,785 (N.D. Texas 2000) ( [iltis notthe Court splace to speculate or imagine whatthe plaintiff s claims may be. ); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Johnson s complaint herein clearly does not satisfy even the minimal pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, as it has not set forth a and & statement of the facts supporting each allegation in the complaint. The plaintiffs complaint presents no discemible federal claim and makes no factual allegations whatsoever. Such defects render the complaint patently insubstantial and, therefore, subject to dismissal, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)( 1). Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477 (6 Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1198 (2000); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537 (1974); Heulth Cost Controls v. Skinner, 44 F.3d 535, 537 (7th Cir. 1995) (court should dismiss claims that are SO attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, n L Case 5:06-cv-00170-KSF Document 3 Filed 06/05/2006 Page 3 of 4 wholly insubstantial, or obviously frivolous for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l)). Johnson also makes no allegation to invoke this Court s subject matter jurisdiction, Thomson v. Gaiskill, 315 U.S. 442 (1942) (plaintiff must expressly allege basis for court s subject matter jurisdiction), rendering the complaint subject to dismissal under Wells or Neitzke . The Court has previously afforded Johnson the opportunity to amend his complaints in other actions that he has filed. But the present complaint utterly fails to assert any discernible claim over which this Court would have subject matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs filing of numerous and patently insubstantial complaints counsel against granting such an opportunity here. The complaint will therefore be dismissed without prejudice. Johnson is now further advised that the Court possesses the inherent authority to prevent the abuse ofthe judicial process by enjoining those who file multiple, frivolous, or malicious pleadings. Filipas v.Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145,1146 (6th Cir. 1987); In re Green, 669 F.2d 779,784 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U S . 32, 44 (1991) ( Courts of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their very creation, with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates. , citing Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204,227,5 L.Ed. 242 (1821)); 28 U.S.C. ยง1651(a) ( The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. ); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). Where a litigant has demonstrated a history of unsubstantial and vexatious litigation [amounting to] an abuse of the permission granted to him to proceed as a pauper in good faith . . . , the Court may enter an order prospectively denying informapauperis status and direct the Clerk of the Court to return unfiled any complaint or petition submitted by the litigant unless 3 Case 5:06-cv-00170-KSF Document 3 Filed 06/05/2006 Page 4 of 4 accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258,260-61 (6th Cir. 1992). The Court is considering sanctions under the afore-discussed authority. It will not invoke such authority at this time, but Johnson is cautioned that if he continues to file complaints and motions which plainly fail to comply with the procedural requirements of the Court, the Court may issue an order directing the Clerk of the Court to refuse to file further submissions from him unless he pre-pays the entire $350.00 district court filing fee. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: (1) Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (2) Plaintiffs application to proceed informapauperis [Record No. 21 is DENIED. KARL S. FORESTER, SENIOR JUDGE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
