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
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 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 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Wood, 111 F.3d 135 (8th Cir. 1997) (unpublished);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 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. On November 22, 2019, plaintiff began filing
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. Plaintiff filed a
response to the Order to Show Cause on December 12, 2019.
brings this action against the Honorable Ronnie L. White to
complain about the dismissal of one or more of his prior
cases. Plaintiff has not alleged a basis for
bringing this action against Judge White, stating only that
he believes that Judge White did not have jurisdiction to
review his action or actions. Plaintiff asserts that
“no court in the United States…has jurisdiction
to make any legal decisions on a ‘traffic
“Statement of Claim, ” plaintiff asserts:
[Judge] Ronnie L. White dismissed a case where he didn't
nor could not, in the United States of America, have any
jurisdiction to do so. The Constitution does not allow
traffic tickets/citation writs of assistance or Bills of
Attainder. Article 1 Section 10 United States Constitution.
Plaintiff seeks several million dollars in damages in this
Court finds that plaintiff's 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 White acted in the absence of jurisdiction or
outside his ...