United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG 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 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); and 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v. Wood, 111 F.3d 135 (8th Cir. 1997) (unpublished).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).
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 not
desisted. On November 22, 2019, plaintiff began filing
lawsuits seeking damages against the District Judges of this
Court who dismissed his cases.
is a pro se litigant who brings this civil action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket No. 1 at 3). He names Judge
Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. as the sole defendant. (Docket No. 1
at 2). The complaint is handwritten on a Court-provided form.
“Statement of Claim” section, plaintiff accuses
Judge Limbaugh of violating the United States Constitution
and violating “his oath to [plaintiff] as the
beneficiary of the contract.” (Docket No. 1 at 5).
Plaintiff alleges that Judge Limbaugh breached this contract,
though he does not explain to what contract he is referring.
He also asserts that Judge Limbaugh “committed
treason.” In committing this alleged treason, plaintiff
states that Judge Limbaugh intentionally inflicted emotional
stress upon him.
to the complaint is a memorandum titled “Judicial
Notice to Challenge the Court's Jurisdiction.”
(Docket No. 1-1). In this memorandum, plaintiff states that a
“traffic ticket IS a ‘Writ of Assistance[, ]'
‘otherwise known as a Bill of Attainder.'”
(Docket No. 1-1 at 1). He further asserts that a Bill of
Attainder is not allowed by the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff also claims that his right to travel by
“private conveyance for private purposes” cannot
seeks $1.6 million in actual damages, $1.6 million in general
damages, and $1.6 million in ...