United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN R. CLARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Willie Cox, Jr., 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 dismissed.
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 826 F.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 tone 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Wood, 111 F.3d 135 (8th Cir. 1997) (unpublished);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 were reviewed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) were 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 plaintiff's 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. Beginning on November
22, 2019 with the instant action, plaintiff filed lawsuits
seeking damages against the District Judges of this Court who
dismissed his cases. On December 10, 2019, the judges of the
Eastern District of Missouri en banc issued an order
giving plaintiff ten days to show cause as to why he should
not be prohibited from filing future actions in this Court
without first obtaining leave of the Court.
brings this action against the Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig
to complain about her dismissal of one of his prior cases,
Cox v. Dodson, 4:19-cv-02748-AGF. In that case,
plaintiff sued a state court judge for denying him a jury
trial in an action he was defending regarding a traffic stop.
Judge Fleissig dismissed the case after determining the judge
was immune from suit.
complaint at bar, plaintiff sets forth his allegations in a
mocking tone, and accuses Judge Fleissig of fraud and
criminal activity. For example, he writes:
Ms. Audrey G. Fleissig has ruled that Malicious Prosecution
is frivolous, lack of probable cause, although I did not
write the word “lack, ” here Ms. Audrey G.
Fleissig, just committed a little act of fraud, I wrote the
words “No probable cause of a crime, ” that's
what I wrote. Two completely different ways of proving a
point, would you say? Ms. Audrey G. Fleissig also wrote that
“violations of due process, breaches of fiduciary
duties and Fourth Amendment rights were frivolous as well,
let's just see shall we?
. . .
Ms. Audrey G. Fleissig is so respectful to he-r fellows,
“The Honorable, ” Jason Dodson, as s-he, so
respectfully wrote it on “My” complaint, which I
did not write, affords a crime, and being a crime, Ms. Audrey
G. Fleissig, with he-r own words, violated he-r fiduciary
duty to me and went beyond he-r restrictions as a officer of
(ECF No. 1, attch. 1 at 24-25). Included with the complaint
are pages of language about various legal topics, and about
Missouri law pertaining to certain vehicle lights. Also
included is a copy of Judge Fleissig's Memorandum and
Order in Cox v. Dodson, 4:19-cv-02748-AGF, with
handwritten notations regarding ...