United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the application of plaintiff
Jovica Petrovic, a former criminal defendant in this Court,
to proceed in the district court without prepaying fees or
costs. Based on plaintiffs financial information, the Court
will grant the application. Furthermore, based upon a review
of the complaint, the Court finds that the complaint should
be dismissed pursuant to28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead
more than "legal conclusions" and
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action [that are] supported by mere conclusory
statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim
for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of
misconduct." Id. at 679. "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."
Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
October 6, 2010, a grand jury indicted plaintiff with four
counts of interstate stalking and harassment in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A), two counts of interstate
extortionate threat under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d), one count
of interstate stalking with a dangerous weapon under 18
U.S.C. § 2261A(1), and one count of interstate violation
of a protection order under 18 U.S.C. § 2262(a)(1).
See United States v. Petrovic, No. 4:10-CR-415-HEA
(E.D. Mo.). On November 18, 2011, a jury found plaintiff
guilty on four counts of interstate stalking and harassment
in violation of protective orders and two counts of
interstate extortionate thereat. The Court sentenced
plaintiff to 96 months' imprisonment. See Id. at
ECF No. 191. Plaintiff appealed, and his conviction and
sentence were affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.
February 24, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
See Petrovic v. United States, No. 4:14-CV-334-HEA
(E.D. Mo.). The Court denied the motion. The Eighth Circuit
affirmed the denial of plaintiff s § 2255 motion on
appeal. Throughout his § 2255 action plaintiff filed
many petitions for writ of mandamus with the Eight Circuit
Court of Appeals, all of which were denied. After the denial
of his § 2255 motion, plaintiff filed two motions to
reopen the case which also were denied.
short, plaintiff has exhausted his direct appeals and his
post-conviction remedies. After serving his sentence,
plaintiff was deported to Germany. He remains a frequent
filer of lawsuits in this Court. See Petrovic v. United
States, No. 4:16-CV-1744-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. filed Nov. 8,
2016); Petrovic v. Jackman, et al, No.
4:16-CV-1770-HEA (E.D. Mo. filed Nov. 7, 2016); Petrovic
v. United States, No. 4:19-CV-47-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. filed
Jan. 14, 2019) (consolidated into Petrovic v. United
States, No. 4:19-CV-30 SNLJ (E.D.Mo. filed Jan. 9,
complaint, brought nominally under the Federal Tort
Claims Act ("FTCA"), plaintiff sues the United
States of America alleging various constitutional violations
by the judge who presided over his federal criminal trial,
United States v. Petrovic, No. 4T0-CV-415-HEA.
Plaintiff states the judge "deliberately and
sadistically sentenced Jovica Petrovic innocent for 96 months
in federal prison. Sentencing was based only on guilty
verdict from the jury, and against the U.S.
Constitution." Many of his arguments are duplicative of
those previously denied in his § 2255 motion. Plaintiff
asserts his innocence, and argues that the judge violated the
sentencing guidelines, law, and the Constitution.
relief, plaintiff seeks a declaration that his constitutional
rights were violated and monetary damages of more than six
complaint will be dismissed as legally frivolous. This action
is duplicative of the prior actions filed in this Court. The
Eighth Circuit has held that a complaint that is duplicative
or repetitive of another complaint previously dismissed in