United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Kelvin Thompson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
this civil action. Upon consideration of the motion and the
financial information provided in support, the Court
concludes that plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. The
motion will therefore be granted. Additionally, the Court
will dismiss the complaint.
Standard on Initial Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 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 may be
granted. An action fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable
basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). The term
“‘frivolous,' when applied to a complaint,
embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also
the fanciful factual allegation.” Id. While
federal courts should not dismiss an action commenced in
forma pauperis if the facts alleged are merely unlikely, the
court can properly dismiss such an action if the
plaintiff's allegations are found to be clearly baseless.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
Allegations are clearly baseless if they are “fanciful,
” “fantastic, ” or “delusional,
” or if they “rise to the level of the irrational
or the wholly incredible.” Id.
action is malicious when it is a part of a longstanding
pattern of abusive and repetitious lawsuits or it contains
disrespectful or abusive language, In re Tyler, 839
F.2d 1290, 1293 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam), or it
is undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named
defendants and not for the purpose of vindicating a
cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F.Supp.
458, 461-63 (E.D. N.C. 1987), aff'd 826 F.2d
1059 (4th Cir. 1987). When determining whether an action is
malicious, the Court need not look only to the complaint
before it but may also look to plaintiff's prior
litigious conduct. Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310,
1316 (4th Cir. 1996).
filed the instant action on August 6, 2019, against the
Ferguson Police Department. He states that since he filed a
civil suit against the St. Louis Metropolitan Police
Department, the Creve Coeur Police Department, and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “they have now
extended their harassment, racism, and civil rights
violations to now enlisting the help of St. Louis County
municipalities, including Ferguson Police Department, Cool
Valley Police Department and Normandy Police
alleges that these entities have brutal civil rights records.
He declares that these entities have officers who
“follow him 24/7.” He states that they
“waste millions of dollars a day in government
resources to follow me to Walmart just to see me buy a loaf
of bread or to Taco Bell just to see me do a #1 or #2.
Literally looking under stalls.”
further alleges, “Ferguson police have even
move…thus and operative next door to me in a condemned
and not fit for occupancy house at 113 Dupree Ave in Ferguson
Missouri, also have moved some across the street and on
surrounding blocks. [They] and their undercover officers and
enlisted operatives and thugs from in and out of the state
Yahweh members, Nation of Islam and masonic members harass
and disrupt me every day of life.” They poison food,
steal mail and intentionally wreck my vehicles in an attempt
to kill or lame me.”
complaint and supplemental pleadings, plaintiff asserts that
he is bringing the present lawsuit pursuant to the following
federal statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 and 245 (conspiracy and
federal protected activities); the Civil Rights Act of 1866
(§ 1981, which prohibits discrimination based on race);
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(“ADEA”); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;
and Police Misconduct Provision 34 U.S.C. § 12601.
seeks $100, 000 in “actual damages” and $1, 000,
000 in “punitive damages” to purportedly
“punish” defendant and deter future civil rights
Current Litigation Before the Court
the dates of July 11, 2019 and the present, plaintiff has
filed thirteen cases in this Court against a myriad of
defendants. See Thompson v. SSA, No. 4:19-CV-1922
SNLJ (E.D.Mo.); Thompson v. SSA, 4:19-CV-2110 CDP
(E.D.Mo.); Thompson v. SSA, No. 4:19-CV-2115
(E.D.Mo); Thompson v. FBI, No. 4:19-CV-2134 SNLJ
(E.D.Mo); Thompson v. Creve Coeur Police Dept., No.
4:19-CV-2138 NCC (E.D.Mo.); Thompson v. St. Louis Metro.
Police, No. 4:19-CV-2139 SRC (E.D.Mo).; Thompson v.
Eckles, No. 4:19-CV-2145 AGF (E.D.Mo); Thompson v.
St. Louis Metro. Police Dept., No. 4:19-CV-2300 CDP
(E.D.Mo); Thompson v. Marcantano, 4:19-CV-2301 CAS,
(E.D.Mo); Thompson v. Normandy Police Dept.,
4:19-CV-2307 SPM (E.D.Mo); Thompson v. Ferguson Police
Dept., No. 4:19-CV-2308 NAB (E.D.Mo.); Thompson v.
Cool Valley Police Dept., 4:19-CV-2309 JMB (E.D.Mo);
Thompson v. Harrison, 4:19-CV-2312 HEA (E.D.Mo). A
review of plaintiff's litigation history in this Court
indicates that most, if not all of plaintiff's actions
appear to be factually frivolous in ...