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.

Thompson v. Eckles

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

August 9, 2019

KELVIN THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
v.
ALLISON ECKLES, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Audrey G. Fleissig United States District Judge

         This 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.

         Legal Standard on Initial Review

          Under 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.

         An 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).

         The Complaint

          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 there.” Id.

         In his 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 Rehabilitation Act.

         Plaintiff seeks $7500 in “actual damages” and $750, 000 in “punitive damages” to purportedly “punish” defendant and deter future civil rights violations.

         Plaintiff's 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.”).

         Discussion

         Having carefully reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, the Court concludes that none of the allegations states a plausible claim for relief.

         The 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 ...


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.