United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. Fleissig 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.
Plaintiff filed the instant action on July 25, 2019, against
an employee of a local Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) Office in St. Louis City, Missouri,
Allison Eckles. He states that he visited the SSA Office on
four separate days in July and “they denied [him]
services.” ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff does not indicate
exactly what services were denied to him; rather, he states
in a conclusory manner that Ms. Eckles “violated his
civil rights.” Id. Plaintiff additionally
alleges that Ms. Eckles “refused [his] request for an
appointment to discuss certain problems with [his] account
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);
the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (§ 1981, which prohibits
discrimination based on race); the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (“ADEA”); and Section 504 of the
seeks $7500 in “actual damages” and $750, 000 in
“punitive damages” to purportedly
“punish” defendant and deter future civil rights
Current Litigation Before the Court
Between 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 Dep't, 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 Dep't, No. 4:19-CV-2300
CDP (E.D. Mo.); Thompson v. Marcantano, 4:19-CV-2301
CAS, (E.D. Mo.); Thompson v. Normandy Police
Dep't, 4:19-CV-2307 SPM (E.D. Mo.); Thompson v.
Ferguson Police Dep't, No. 4:19-CV-2308 NAB (E.D.
Mo.); Thompson v. Cool Valley Police Dep't,
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 nature. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32
(“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or
the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
noticeable facts available to contradict them.”).
carefully reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, the
Court concludes that none of the allegations states a
plausible claim for relief.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to
formulate their pleadings in an organized and comprehensible
manner. Civil plaintiffs are required to set out their
alleged claims and the facts supporting those claims in a
simple, concise, and direct manner. Even pro se litigants are
obligated to plead specific facts and proper jurisdiction and
abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
McNeil, 508 U.S. at 113. Here, plaintiff has failed to
follow the foregoing requirements. Although the Court is to
give plaintiff's complaint the benefit of a liberal
construction, the Court will not create facts or construct
claims. Plaintiff has failed to articulate exactly how Ms.
Eckles violated his rights or discriminated against him.
Plaintiff does not indicate exactly what services ...