Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roy Triplett, P.C. v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

August 29, 2016

ROY TRIPLETT, P.C., Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

          ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE

         On August 4, 2016, Plaintiff Roy Triplett, P.C. paid his filing fee and filed a complaint. Doc. #2. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff amended his complaint. Doc. #8. Although this matter has been pending for a matter of weeks, Plaintiff has filed nine pleadings entitled “Brief.” Docs. #3-7, 9-12. As set forth herein, Plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

         I. HISTORY WITH PLAINTIFF

         Plaintiff has been a frequent pro se filer of unsuccessful actions in this Court. See Triplett v. Obama, Case No. 15-CV-520-BCW (W.D. Mo. Nov. 20, 2015) (Doc. #12) (denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and noting “Plaintiff's claims are unintelligible and fail to adequately state any claim upon which relief can be granted.”); Triplett v. United States Postal Serv., Case No. 14-CV-63-HFS (W.D. Mo. Feb. 3, 2014) (Doc. #8) (denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, stating “plaintiff's allegations are unintelligible and fail to adequately state any claim upon which relief may be granted.”); Triplett v. Office of United States Dep't of State, Case No. 13-CV-912-DW (W.D. Mo. Nov. 21, 2013) (Doc. #62) (dismissing sua sponte Plaintiff's lawsuit, stating that Plaintiff's allegations were “unclear, intelligible” and he failed to state any claim upon which relief may be granted); Roy Triplett PC v. United States Postal Serv., Case No. 13-CV-463 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 26, 2013) (Doc. #83) (dismissing lawsuit for failure to effectuate service and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Triplett v. Rockhurst Univ., Case No. 01-CV-395-ODS (W.D. Mo. Apr. 16, 2011) (Doc. #4) (denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis); Triplett v. Lindsey, Case No. 00-CV-1129-GAF (W.D. Mo. June 26, 2001) (Doc. #18) (dismissing matter for failure to obtain service upon defendants); Triplett v. Univ. of Missouri-Kansas City, Case No. 00-CV-1127-FJG (W.D. Mo. Mar. 28, 2002) (Doc. #49) (dismissing lawsuit for failure to state a claim and for insufficiency of service of process). Many Judges noted Plaintiff's frequent, unsuccessful attempts to bring claims in this Court.

         Plaintiff's claims have faced a similar fate in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. In 2014, the District of Kansas dismissed Plaintiff's lawsuit against an “SSA Clerk” and several others. Triplett v. Jeaneas, Case No. 14-CV-2054-CM-JPO (D. Kan. Mar. 10, 2014). Judge Murguia found Plaintiff “failed to set forth any facts giving rise to his purported cause(s) of action” and it was not “apparent from the complaint (or his subsequent amended complaint) just what his causes of action” were. Id., Doc. #44, at 3. Judge Murguia noted Plaintiff “fail[ed] to include any allegation about [the named] defendants” or the alleged conduct in which any of the defendants engaged Id., at 4. The Court found Plaintiff's factual allegations were insufficient to support his claim, “whatever those may be.” Id., at 4.

         But Judge Murguia's recent decision is not the only time Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to bring claims in the District of Kansas. In 2005 and 2011, Plaintiff's claims were dismissed as unintelligible, and the dismissals were upheld on appeal. Triplett v. Triplett, Case No. 04-CV-2223-CM-JPO, 2005 WL 2122802, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 8, 2008) (dismissing Plaintiff's claims because the court could not “divine a viable claim from plaintiff's complaint” and his “pleadings consist[ed] of little more than unintelligible ramblings.”), aff'd, 166 F.App'x 338, 340 (10th Cir. 2006); Triplett v. U.S. Dep't of Def., Case No. 11-CV-2105-SAC (D. Kan. Apr. 20, 2011) (Doc. #15) (dismissing Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim), aff'd, 441 F.App'x 618, 619 (10th Cir. 2011) (finding it was “plainly evident that the district court did not err by dismissing Mr. Triplett's complaint for failure to state a claim”). Plaintiff's numerous and unintelligible filings are nothing new to this Court or the District of Kansas.

         II. STANDARD

         Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint contain “a short and plain statement” of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, claim showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)-(3). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d). To state a claim for relief, a claim must be plausible on its face. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content 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). Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the dismissal of lawsuits that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). While a pro se complaint should be given liberal construction, the essence of an allegation must be discernible and the complaint should state a claim as a matter of law. See Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); Guy v. Swift & Co., 612 F.2d 383, 385 (8th Cir. 1980) (citation omitted).

         “Without question, a district court has the power to dismiss a complaint sua sponte, but only where plaintiff cannot possibly prevail and amendment would be futile.” Bucklew v. Lombardi, 783 F.3d 1120, 1127 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). The dismissal does not require prior notice under Rule 12(b)(6) “when it is patently obvious the plaintiff could not prevail based on the facts alleged in the complaint.” Murphy v. Lancaster, 960 F.2d 746, 748 (8th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted); see also Porter v. Fox, 99 F.3d 271, 273-74 (8th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted) (finding a district court may dismiss a case sua sponte prior to service of process if the complaint is frivolous).

         III. DISCUSSION

         From what the Court can discern, Plaintiff appears to bring claims against 91 Defendants arising from events that occurred in 1986. Doc. #8.[1] These Defendants include but are certainly not limited to the United States; federal agencies; state departments and employees thereof; correctional facilities and employees thereof; police departments, commissioners, and officers, medical professionals; and medical facilities and employees thereof.

         Plaintiff failed to set forth any factual allegations regarding nearly half of the defendants he identified. There are no factual allegations pertaining to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Loretta Lynch, Chris Koster, Eric Lowe, Susan Suddeth, John Hickey, Lane Robert, Darryl Forte, Missouri Division of Professional Registration, Jefferson City Correctional Center, Jefferson City Correctional Center for Women, Dr. Gary Lipinski, James Whitman, James Williams, Samuel Davis, Jonathon Williams, Herbert Johnson, Thelma Williams, Michael Pazzinni, Craig Brady, James Williams, Trent Williams, Trent Dilfer, Dr. Karen Sarenka, Dr. Joshua Broghammer, Urology Clinic, Research Medical Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Joliet Correctional Center, Attica Correctional Facility, Sing Sing Prison, Menard Corrections Center, Missouri Department of Corrections, St. Louis Police Department, Shreveport Police Department, and Federal Correctional Institution - Terminal Island. Doc. #8. These people and entities are listed in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, but Plaintiff failed to set forth any factual allegations supporting claims against any of these people or entities. Doc. #8. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Amend Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8, and fails to state a claim against, at a minimum, those Defendants he simply named.

         Additionally, much of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is unintelligible.[2] Many of sentences go on for pages and are incoherent and incomprehensible. By way of example, one sentence reads as follows:

The Plaintiff must require for the admissibility of genetic DNA fingerprints of attackers, and the evidence of all illegal use of medical treatments of the Hematology Gas Thermolopoly Procedures, Electronic Bone Graph Exam, Cranial-3 Syringe Injections of A.I.D.S. (Acquired Immune Defencienty [sic] Syndrome), Factory into human brain, Inhalation Tube Resister, Graham Electrics Rhino Binert, Keaopackte [sic] Shards of Nails illegally inserted through anal cavity, the lacerated scars of abdominal wall unto the induced state of hiatal hernia, Angular Tourniquet Release Procedure for the result of broken Interior Cruciate Ligament, Anterior Cruciate Ligament, the broken jaw bone unto fracture strikes of a heavy metal pipe, and the Osgood Schlatter Disease of the right knee, illegal reduction of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.