United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Willie Cox, a/k/a Abbue-Jau, for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in this civil action. For the reasons explained
below, the motion will be denied, and this case will be
Standard on Initial Review
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to
closely screen cases where, as here, there is an application
to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court may deny a litigant
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss an action if
it determines that the complaint is frivolous or malicious. A
complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint is malicious if it was
filed for the purpose of harassing the named defendant 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 826F.2d 1061 (4th Cir. 1987).
considering whether a complaint is malicious, the Court may
refer to objective factors such as the circumstances
surrounding the filing and the nature of the allegations.
Id. Additionally, the Eighth Circuit has recognized
that "malicious" applies to situations where the
complaint is "plainly part of a longstanding pattern of
abusive and repetitious lawsuits." Horsey v.
Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 213 (8th Cir. 1984), Cooper v.
Wood, 111 F.3d 135 (8th Cir. 1997) (unpublished);
see also In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989) (leave
to proceed in forma pauperis can be denied based in part on
prior abusive litigation).
case at bar is one of many interrelated civil rights actions
plaintiff has filed pro se and in forma pauperis in this
Court since September 17, 2019. As of the date of this Memorandum
and Order, all of plaintiff s cases that have been reviewed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) have been
dismissed for one of the reasons set forth therein. In
Cox v. City of Clayton, 4:19-cv-03091-RLW, the
Honorable Ronnie L. White determined that plaintiffs repeated
filing of frivolous and interrelated lawsuits amounted to
abuse of the judicial process, and cautioned him that
restrictions may be imposed if he continued the practice. On
November 22, 2019, plaintiff began filing lawsuits seeking
damages against the District Judges of this Court who
dismissed his cases.
brings this action against the Honorable John A. Ross to
complain about the dismissal of one of his prior cases,
Cox v. Grammer, 4:19-cv-2662-PLC. For his statement
of the claim, plaintiff attaches to the complaint the
memorandum and order dated November 25, 2019 signed by Judge
Ross. Plaintiff has made handwritten notations throughout the
six-page memorandum and order. For example, plaintiff has
circled the word "plausible" and inserted a
handwritten notation that this word is "unlawful by
definition"; plaintiff has circled the word
"liberally" and inserted a notation that this word
is "unconstitutional"; plaintiff has handwritten
"assumption sue Grammer as Grammer not P.O. Grammer
which you did"; plaintiff has handwritten "this is
all you not me, [illegible] filed this complaint you are
me"? (ECF No. 1, attch. 1 at 1-7). Plaintiff then
attaches several pages of typewritten "constitutional
case law," definitions, and statements such as
"traffic court is a fiction it is generally there for
those that commit commercial acts," and "Police
officers must be amenable to you at all time. Amenable means;
willing to be responsive to; agreeable; able to submit to a
higher authority. Not answering your questions they become
guilty of commercial insurance fraud." In all,
plaintiffs attachments are 42 pages in length. Plaintiff
seeks a total of $2 million in damages.
Court finds that plaintiffs in forma pauperis application
should be denied and this action should be dismissed because
the complaint is frivolous and malicious. The complaint is
frivolous because judges generally cannot be sued for
monetary relief based on alleged judicial misconduct, and
nothing in the instant complaint establishes that Judge Ross
acted in the absence of jurisdiction or outside his judicial
capacity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,
434-35 (1976) (citing Pier son v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547
(1967)). The complaint is malicious because it is clear from
the circumstances surrounding the filing and the nature of
the allegations that plaintiff filed the complaint to harass
and disparage Judge Ross for ruling against him, see
Spencer, 656 F.Supp. at 461-63, and because the
complaint is clearly part of a pattern of abusive and
repetitious lawsuits. See Horsey, 741 F.2d at 213.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED. [ECF No. 2]
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is
DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A separate order ...