Johnson v. Carter, No. 5:2006cv00171 - Document 3 (E.D. Ky. 2006)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) plf's complaint is DISMISSED W/O PREJUDICE (2) plf's application to proceed IFP 2 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (LKM)cc: COR

Download PDF

Johnson v. Carter Doc. 3 Case 5:06-cv-00171-JMH Document 3 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 1 of 3 Eastern District of Kentucky FllLED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON DIVISION JUN 0 1 2006 AT LEXINGTON LESLIE G WHITMER CLERK U S DISTRICT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-171-JMH MARCUS BOND JOHNSON vs: PLAINTIFF MEMORAND JMOPINION AND ORDER SUSAN VICTORIA CARTER DEFENDANT Marcus Bond Johnson, a non-prisoner plaintiff who has filed nine pro se, informapauperis complaints in the last thirty days, has filed a one-page handwritten document with the Court [Record No. 11, which the Court construes as a complaint. That complaint appears to only request that the defendant be disowned for because of neglect and fraud. 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, Haines 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 that fails to meet these basic requirements should be dismissed without prejudice. Parker v. Debuono, 2000 WL 223841 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services, 20 F.3d 771,775 (7th Cir. 1994). This is equally true of pro se complaints, which may be dismissed sua sponte if they fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8. Owens v. Suter, 2003 WL 942554 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Bowel1 v. Honorable Governor of Texas, 138 F.Supp.2d 782, 785 (N.D. Texas 2000) ( [ilt is not the Court s place to speculate or imagine what the plaintiffs claims may be. ); Wells v. Brown, 891 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:06-cv-00171-JMH Document 3 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 2 of 3 F.2d 591,594 (6th Cir. 1989); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,327 (1989). Johnson s complaint does not satisfy even the minimal pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a plaintiff to set forth a and Dlain statement of the facts supporting each allegation in the complaint. The plaintiffs complaint presents no discernible 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 hCir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 US.1198 (2000); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US.528, 537 (1974); Health 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, wholly insubstantial, or obviously frivolous for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)). Johnson also makes no allegation to invoke this Court s subject matter jurisdiction, Thomson v. Gaiskill, 3 15 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 recently filed. But the present complaint utterly fails to assert any discernible claim, 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 hereby further advised that the Court possesses the inherent authority to prevent the abuse of the 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, Znc., 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, 2 Case 5:06-cv-00171-JMH Document 3 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 3 of 3 and decorum, in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates. , citing Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204,227,s L.Ed. 242 (1821)); 28 U.S.C. 6 1651(a) ( The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respectivejurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. ); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 35 1,352 (10th Cir. 1989). Where a litigant has demonstrated a history of unsubstantial and vexatious litigation [amountingto] 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 accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258,260-61 (6th Cir. 1992). The Court will not invoke this authority at this time, but Johnson is cautioned that if he continues to file complaints with the Court that plainly fail to comply with the procedural requirements of the Court, he will be directed to Show Cause why an order should not be entered directing the Clerk of the Court to refuse further filings from him unless he prepays the entire $350.00 filing fee. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: (1) Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (2) Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. $1915(a) [Record No. 21 is DENIED. This the Lk 1 -day of June, 2006. Date of Entry and Service: 3

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.