United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Willie
Cox, Jr., a/k/a Abbue-Jah, for leave to commence this civil
action without prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket
No. 2). For the reasons discussed 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 fails to
state a claim. 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 fails to state a claim if it does not demonstrate a
plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
instant case is one of many interrelated civil rights actions
that plaintiff has filed pro se and in forma pauperis in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri since September 17, 2019. As of the date of this
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 in the statute.
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. Plaintiff was
cautioned that restrictions may be imposed on him if he
continued the practice. Nevertheless, plaintiff has continued
filing lawsuits, including against the District Judges of
this Court who have dismissed his cases.
is a pro se litigant and frequent filer of lawsuits who
brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Docket No. 1 at 3). He names Joseph Dewey as the sole
defendant. (Docket No. 1 at 2). He does not provide any
further information about Dewey, such as occupation or
address, and he does not indicate the capacity in which Dewey
“Statement of Claim, ” plaintiff asserts that
Dewey “decided a case where he (in his own person)
failed to prove jurisdiction.” (Docket No. 1 at 5). He
also claims that Dewey denied him “trial de [novo],
” which he states is a due process violation. Plaintiff
further alleges that the United States Constitution does not
allow bills of attainder or writs of assistance, which
plaintiff contends includes traffic tickets. Specifically,
plaintiff states that traffic tickets and citations
“are not allowed in the United States of
America.” (Docket No. 1 at 3).
is seeking $1.6 million in punitive damages, $1.6 million in
actual damages, and a further $1.6 million in punitive
damages. (Docket No. 1 at 5).
has filed this civil action against Joseph Dewey, accusing
him of failing “to prove jurisdiction” and
violating his right to due process. The Court finds that
plaintiff's in forma pauperis application should be
denied, and this action dismissed, because the complaint is
frivolous and fails to state a claim.
complaint is frivolous because plaintiff's contention
that the United States Constitution somehow does not allow
for the issuance of traffic tickets lacks an arguable basis
in law or fact. See Martinez v. Turner, 977 F.2d
421, 423 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that complaint
may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis
in law or fact). Furthermore, the complaint fails to state a
claim because it contains only legal conclusions, without any
supporting factual allegations. See Wiles v. Capitol
Indem. Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir.
2002) (“While the court must accept allegations of fact
as true…the court is free to ignore legal conclusions,
unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences and sweeping
legal conclusions cast in the form of factual
allegations”). Moreover, plaintiff has failed to
present facts sufficient to allege a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. See Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 848
(8th Cir. 2010) (explaining that to ...