Abdulmutallab et al v. Shahzad et al, No. 5:2010cv00093 - Document 4 (W.D. Ky. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 8/4/2010: Riches must pay the $350 filing fee for this action within 30 days of entry of this ordercc:counsel (KJA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Abdulmutallab et al v. Shahzad et al Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB JONATHAN LEE RICHES HAKIMULLAH MEHSUD v. PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10CV-P93-R FAISAL SHAHZAD HUMA ASIF MIAN DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Jonathan Lee Riches, a well-known frequent filer of frivolous lawsuits throughout the federal court system,1 brings this action as a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, TRO 28 USC 1331. Riches allegedly brings this suit along with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with attempting to detonate an explosive device hidden in his underwear while on an airplane on Christmas Day 2009,2 and Hakimullah Mehsud, a Pakistan Taliban leader.34 In the handwritten document, Riches sues Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the May 1, 2010, Times Square Car Bomb plot,5 and Huma Asif Mian, Shahzad s wife. In the complaint, Riches raises ridiculous, outrageous, and wholly frivolous allegations against Defendants. 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 See http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/28/airline.terror.attempt/index.html. 3 See http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/pakistan.taliban/index.html. 4 The undersigned disputes the authenticity of Abdulmutallab s and Mehsud s signatures and does not consider those persons to be parties to this action. The Court warns Plaintiff Riches that forging a signature can result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 5 See http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/faisal-shahzad-pleads-guilty-times-square-car-bomb/ story?id=10970094. Dockets.Justia.com 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, 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, warranting dismissal of the action. The Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal. The Court advises that by Order entered June 18, 2010, in Civil Action No. 3:10CV-P426R, this Court concluded that 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, therefore, warned Riches that his continued efforts in filing frivolous lawsuits in this Court will result in the imposition of sanctions. Because this action was filed prior to the entry of that Order, the Court will not impose sanctions. The Court, nevertheless, reiterates that Riches continued efforts in filing frivolous lawsuits in this Court will result in the imposition of sanctions. Finally, the Court advises that Riches neither paid the $350.00 filing fee nor filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. However, numerous federal courts throughout the United States have found Riches subject to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which prohibits Riches from proceeding in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Riches v. X-Men, Inc., No. 5:09CV-MC-112-KSF, 2009 WL 997092 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 14, 2009) (applying § 1915(g)); Riches v. Dierks, Nos. 1:08CV2 et seq., 2008 WL 714069 (N.D. W.Va. Mar. 4, 2008) (applying § 1915(g) and advising that at least seven of Plaintiff s prior suits were dismissed prior to service of process 2 as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 ). Section 1915(g) provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Although in the instant action Riches alleges that he face[s] imminent danger and bodily harm from Defendants, his allegations are fanciful and irrational. Section 1915(g) applies to this action. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Riches must pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action within 30 days of entry of this Order. Should Riches fail to timely comply, the Court will direct the institution in which he is incarcerated to deduct the filing fee from his prison trust account. Date: August 4, 2010 cc: Plaintiff Riches, pro se 4413.005 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.
