Pratt v. Riches et al, No. 3:2010cv00426 - Document 3 (W.D. Ky. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 06/18/2010; order of dismissal to enter. cc:plaintiff (CSD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV-P426-R SPENCER PRATT JONATHAN LEE RICHES PLAINTIFFS v. HEIDI MONTAG DR. AMANDA HUGHES DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Federal prisoner Jonathan Lee Riches, a well-known frequent filer of frivolous lawsuits throughout the federal court system,1 initiated this action allegedly along with Spencer Pratt, a television personality from MTV s The Hills.2 In the handwritten document styled Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, TRO 28 USC 1331, Plaintiffs sue Heidi Montag, Plaintiff Spencer Pratt s wife, and Dr. Amanda Hughes, Drug Treatment Specialist at the Lexington Federal Medical Center, where Plaintiff Riches is incarcerated. The allegations in the complaint are largely fanciful and frivolous and do not bear repeating here. In the Sixth Circuit, a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, 1 Per a search of the U.S. Party/Case Index, Plaintiff Riches has filed or sought to intervene in well over 2100 federal cases throughout the nation. See www.pacer.gov. In the Western District of Kentucky, Plaintiff Riches has filed 17 cases and sought to intervene in 5 cases thus far. 2 The undersigned strongly questions the authenticity of Spencer Pratt s signature. The Court warns Plaintiff Riches that forging a signature can result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court finds that the allegations in the instant complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, and no longer open to discussion,3 warranting dismissal of the action. The Court is compelled to advise that [t]he goal of fairly dispensing justice . . . is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests. In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 179-80 (1991). Plaintiff Riches has abused the judicial process, as is evident in the over 2100 federal cases across the nation in which he has filed or sought to intervene. The Court WARNS Plaintiff Riches that his continued efforts in filing frivolous lawsuits in this Court will result in the imposition of sanctions. The Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal. Date: June 18, 2010 cc: Plaintiffs, pro se 4413.005 3 At the end of the document, Plaintiff Riches advises that he and Pratt seek a restraining order directing Defendant Montag to stop committing adultery and for Riches to get medical treatment for the HIV he got from Montag. He does not provide any details of anyone at the Federal Medical Center failing to provide him with HIV treatment. If he is not receiving treatment, the proper course is to file a Bivens action in the Eastern District of Kentucky. 2
]]>
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.
