Scott v. Unknown Party

Filing 6

ORDER granting Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2 ). Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Summary Judgment (Doc. 5 ) is denied as moot and this case is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of this Order, why the injunction proposed in this Order should not be imposed. Plaintiff's response to this Order shall be limited to this issue. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order or fails to persuade the Court that an injunction should not be imposed, the Court will issue an injunction with the terms set forth in this Order. Signed by Chief Judge G Murray Snow on 9/26/2024. (KJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Gene Scott, II,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Unknown Party,

13

No. CV-24-02428-PHX-GMS
ORDER

Defendant.

14
15
16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court

17

without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) and a Motion Requesting Summary Judgment

18

(Doc. 5). The same document contains a Motion to Reconsider in an unrelated and

19

unidentified action. The Court will grant the Application to Proceed in District Court

20

without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) and screen Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28

21

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to that screening, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed

22

as frivolous without leave to amend. The Court thus denies as moot Mr. Scott’s Motion

23

Requesting Summary Judgment (Doc. 5). Further Plaintiff Gene Scott II, signing the

24

Complaint as Gene Edward Scott II, has abused the legal process egregiously and often,

25

and does so again by the filing of this Complaint. This Order not only dismisses this action

26

with prejudice but, orders Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not impose an

27

abusive-litigant injunction to curb Plaintiff’s accelerating practice of filing wholly

28

meritless suits within the Federal Courts.

1

BACKGROUND

2

In the present complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim against an unknown Defendant or

3

Defendants. His claim seeks “For wherever to Legalize Plaintiff’s Liquor Consumptions

4

and Sales,” apparently a § 1983 claim which he identifies under Amendments I, VIII and

5

XIV of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (which defines the exclusive

6

jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade). He apparently seeks some form of general

7

declaratory authorization to both sell and consume liquor regardless of the setting. His

8

only other allegation in the Complaint states that he “has … legal Certifications for both

9

Dual Diagnosis and Meta Service as Counselor,” and further states that “Plaintiff during

10

now and ongoing and … is age: 57 years.”

11

Since 2003 Plaintiff has filed at least 108 cases with this Court. His rate of filing

12

has increased exponentially in the last three years, during which Plaintiff has filed

13

approximately 80 cases. All of Plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed on the various bases

14

as set forth in appendix A to this order.

15

This Court has for over a year repeatedly warned Plaintiff about the likely

16

consequences of continuing his pattern of filing meritless lawsuits. Scott v. Veteran’s

17

Admin., 2:23-cv-1151-DWL (July 19, 2023) (Doc. 12) at 3-4. Scott v. Unknown Party,

18

2:24-cv-1343-DWL (Doc. 6) (June 21, 2024); Scott v. Unknown Party, 2:24-cv-2000-MTL

19

(Doc. 5) (August 13, 2024); Scott v. Unknown Party, 2:24-cv-01221-SMM (Doc. 6) August

20

21, 2024; Scott v. U.S. Dep’t of Veteran’s Affairs, 24-cv-2074-SMM (Doc. 6) (Aug. 29,

21

2024). His filing of frivolous lawsuits has nevertheless accelerated. Further, although a

22

resident of this state, Plaintiff has filed a sufficient number of meritless complaints (at least

23

six) in the Eastern District of Arkansas that he has lost his ability to file in forma pauperis

24

complaints there. Scott v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 2024 WL 1069723 at *1, 4:24-cv-

25

00049-BRW (E.D. Ark. January 24, 2024) (holding that “the Clerk of the Court is directed

26

to no longer accept complaints from Plaintiff unless he pays the filing fee. Previous

27

warnings have been ignored and this is the only way to prevent Plaintiff from wasting the

28

Court’s resources.”)

-2-

1

DISCUSSION

2

I.

Dismissal of the Instant Complaint

3

While much of § 1915 outlines how prisoners can file proceedings in forma

4

pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings not just those filed

5

by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that “although

6

the PLRA was intended to cut down on the volume of prisoner lawsuits . . . section 1915(e)

7

applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”) [S]ection

8

1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis

9

complaint that either fails to state a claim or is frivolous or malicious.

28 U.S.C.

To state a claim, a complaint must contain “more than labels and

10

§ 1915(e)(2).

11

conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action[;]” it must

12

contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

13

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility

14

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

15

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. If the Court

16

determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant

17

is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before the dismissal of the action. See

18

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

19

“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions,

20

is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Nietzke v. Williams,

21

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the

22

facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are

23

judicially recognized facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.

24

25, 33 (1992).

25

Plaintiff’s Complaint is completely unintelligible and falls far short of plausibility.

26

It does not even include a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Because

27

the Plaintiff’s claim lacks any arguable basis either in law or in fact, it is also frivolous. As

28

such it is dismissed. Because the complaint is unintelligible and frivolous, it cannot be

-3-

1

saved under any of the grounds asserted by Claimant, and dismissal with prejudice would

2

have no preclusive effect on any future meritorious suit as no Defendant is named. The

3

dismissal is, thus, without leave to amend.

4

II.

5

28 U.S.C. § 1915 allows district courts to waive filing fees for those unable to pay

6

them to “promote the interests of justice.” In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 179 (1991). As

7

this Court observed in Maisano v. CO III Clark, 4:14-cv-00001-RCC (Doc. 2) at 2 (January

8

29, 2014) “the vast majority of those seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in this District

9

are permitted to do so.” But as the Maisano court also noted, “a few who do so ‘seize on

10

the court’s openness and pervert it for purposes that have little to do with obtaining

11

justice.’” Id. quoting Jones v. Warden of the Statesville Corr. Ctr., 918 F. Supp. 1142,

12

1152 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The Order to Show Cause

13

III.

14

Plaintiff first filed a case with this Court in 1996, but then did not file any further

15

cases until 2003. Although in some years thereafter he filed no cases at all, when he filed

16

cases, he typically filed between one and three cases a year with an uptick in 2010 in which

17

he filed nine cases and 2015 in which he filed six. In the last three years, however, Plaintiff

18

has filed 78 cases with this Court: sixteen in 2022, 31 cases in 2023 and 31 so far this year.

19

His pace of filings has increased more than ten-fold.1 All of Plaintiffs cases, regardless of

20

when they have been filed, have been dismissed: 34 of the cases were voluntarily dismissed

21

by the Plaintiff before any action was taken, 28 of them were dismissed as frivolous by the

22

Court, 15 were dismissed by the Court after the Complaint was dismissed with leave to

23

amend and Plaintiff failed to amend, on six more Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim

24

rather than file an amendment, and 10 more were dismissed for lack of prosecution. Four

25

more remain pending.

Need for an Abusive-Litigant Injunction

26
27
28

1

Since 2003 Plaintiff has filed at least 108, but, as is demonstrated, his rate of filing has
increased exponentially in the last three years. Plaintiff has never asserted a meritorious
claim.

-4-

1

These cases, whether or not a determination of frivolousness was made, are wholly

2

without merit. They generally seek relief that is beyond any power of this Court to cure.

3

For example, Plaintiff currently has another case pending in this division of the Court in

4

which he seeks the exoneration of Jesus Christ under the United States Constitution from

5

judgments imposed under Roman and Egyptian rule. It names as Defendants, Rome, Italy,

6

Europe, Pontius Pilate, and Unknown Persons. Scott v. Rome, Italy and Europe, 2:24-cv-

7

2012-GMS (Doc. 1) (August 9, 2024). After filing an Application for Leave to Proceed in

8

Forma Pauperis, (Id. at Doc. 2), he has asked that a summary judgment be entered,

9

dismissing the case, but awarding him his costs in bringing it. (Id. at Doc. 5). The same

10

document contains a motion to reconsider in an unrelated but unidentified action.

11

In other recent actions brought in this Division, Plaintiff has sued “Section 8”

12

apparently some form of governmental housing subsidy from which he benefits. He

13

apparently wants a declaratory judgment under the Constitution and the “Administrative

14

Act,” to the effect that he can keep Section 8 benefits, while still gaining income. Scott v.

15

Section 8, 2:23-cv-01687-GMS (Doc. 1) (August 18, 2023). Plaintiff has also sued the

16

Arizona Motor Vehicle Division under the United States Constitution requesting the cost-

17

free reinstatement of his driver’s license, Scott v. Az MVD, 2:23-cv-02326-GMS (Doc. 1)

18

(November 6, 2023); he has also sued Monroe County, Arkansas asking the Court to order

19

the small community to conduct weekly varsity sports in the high school gymnasium with

20

paid spectator’s admissions, and free snacks and drinks to stimulate the economy and

21

provide good exercise to the people as a matter of constitutional right. Scott v. Monroe

22

County, Arkansas, 2:24-cv-00766-GMS (Doc. 1) (April 5, 2024). As he did in this action,

23

Plaintiff most often files cases against identified or “Unknown Defendants” seeking relief

24

that is both extreme and unavailable.

25

Last year, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s meritless pattern of filing frivolous cases

26

accompanied by IFP applications, each containing a different account of Plaintiff’s

27

finances, even when filed in the same month and then voluntarily dismissing these cases.

28

It then warned plaintiff that “[t]he practice of repeatedly filing actions in federal court

-5-

1

without an intention to proceed with them needlessly burdens the judiciary. Plaintiff is

2

cautioned that continuing this pattern could result in an order to show cause why sanctions

3

should not be imposed.” Scott v. Veteran’s Admin., 2:23-cv-1151-DWL (July 19, 2023)

4

(Doc. 12) at 3-4. Thereafter the Court has repeatedly advised Plaintiff of the frivolous

5

nature of his suits, Scott v. Unknown Party, 2:24-cv-1343 (Doc. 6) (June 21, 2024); Scott

6

v. Unknown Party, 2:24-cv-2000-MTL (Doc. 5) (August 13, 2024); Scott v. Unknown

7

Party, 2:24-cv-01221-SMM (Doc. 6) August 21, 2024; Scott v. U.S. Dep’t of Veteran’s

8

Affairs, 24-cv-2074-SMM (Doc. 6) (Aug. 28, 2024). The Court’s warnings have done

9

nothing to stem these filings.

10

“Every paper filed with a court requires the expenditure of limited judicial

11

resources. In Re McDonald, 489 U.S. at 184. When a court is forced to devote its limited

12

judicial resources to processing repetitious and frivolous cases, the “goal of dispensing

13

justice is compromised.” Maisano, 4:14-cv-00001-RCC (Doc. 2) at 2 citing In re Sindram,

14

498 U.S. at 179-80. The court’s ability to ensure the administration of justice for all

15

litigants is endangered by the abusive conduct of a few. Even if Plaintiff is under

16

misperceptions and does not fully mean to engage in abusive litigation, in the filings of his

17

multiple meritless complaints, he is doing so.

18

Courts may use their inherent powers to “restrict a litigant’s ability to commence

19

abusive litigation in forma pauperis. Visser v. Supreme Court of the State of California,

20

919 F.2d 113, 114 (9th Cir. 1990). They must regulate the activity of abusive litigations

21

“by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.” DeLong

22

v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d

23

351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989).

24

IV.

25

Prior to restricting an abusive litigant’s access to the Court, the Court must provide

26

that litigant with notice of the impending injunction and an opportunity to oppose it.

27

DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). The order must be “narrowly

28

tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered,” to prevent infringement on the right

Proposed Injunctive Order

-6-

1

of access. Id.

2

Federal statute prohibits prisoner plaintiffs from bringing a civil action in forma

3

pauperis if the plaintiff has, “on 3 or more prior occasions, . . . brought an action or

4

appeal . . . that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state

5

a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of

6

serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Some courts have explicitly held that while

7

the statute refers only to prisoners, it equally applies to non-prisoners. Groulx v. Zawadski,

8

635 F.Supp.3d 574 (E.D. Mich. 2022), Cf. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.

9

2000) (holding that “although the PLRA was intended to cut down on the volume of

10

prisoner lawsuits . . . section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just

11

those filed by prisoners.”) Even assuming, however, that section (g) of the Act only applies

12

to prisoners as a matter of statute, there is no apparent reason why, through the Court’s

13

inherent power, the same result should not apply to non-prisoners who have filed three IFP

14

lawsuits dismissed as frivolous. Visser, 919 F.2d at 114. This District has dismissed 26 of

15

Plaintiff’s cases as frivolous; many more dismissed on other grounds were also frivolous.

16

The Eastern District of Arkansas has dismissed at least six of Plaintiff’s cases as frivolous.

17

Thus, as a matter of either statute or the Court’s inherent power to prevent vexatious

18

litigation, the Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any in forma pauperis lawsuit that does not

19

assert that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

20

Further, in light of the multiple meritless filings by the Plaintiff, the Court will limit

21

the number of times that Plaintiff may seek to file in forma pauperis lawsuits to three times

22

per year. Jones v. Warden of Statesville Correctional Center, 918 F. Supp. 1142, 1155

23

(E.D. Ill. 1995) (enjoining Plaintiff from filing more than three in forma pauperis suits per

24

year.) see also Cello-Whitney v. Hoover, 769 F. Supp. 1155, 1157 (W.D. Wa. 1991) (same).

25

Further, as to those three lawsuits allowed, Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any civil action

26

in this or any other federal court without first obtaining leave of the court.

27

V.

28

This Order serves as notice of the Court’s intent to impose an abusive-litigant

Notice and Opportunity to Show Cause

-7-

1

injunction on Plaintiff. The Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to show cause in

2

writing why such an injunction should not be imposed. Plaintiff’s response to this Order

3

shall be limited to this issue and shall be filed within 14 days of the date this Order is filed.

4

If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order or fails to persuade the Court that an

5

injunction should not be imposed, the Court will enter an injunction with the following

6

terms:

7

1.

8
9

Plaintiff is enjoined from filing or lodging under his name or any other name
or alias more than three in forma pauperis lawsuits in any one calendar year.

2.

Because Plaintiff has many more than “three strikes,” any in forma pauperis

10

lawsuit he files must clearly, coherently, and credibly allege that Plaintiff is

11

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

12

imminent danger may subject Plaintiff to sanctions.

13

3.

False allegations of

The Clerk of Court shall not accept, shall not return, and shall discard every in

14

forma pauperis lawsuit submitted in excess of the limit of three per year or in

15

which imminent danger of serious physical injury is not alleged.

16

4.

As to any one of the three in forma pauperis lawsuits which Plaintiff seeks to

17

file in any calendar year, Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any civil action in

18

this or any other federal court without first obtaining leave of the court. In

19

seeking leave to file, Plaintiff must file a motion for leave to file captioned as

20

an “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File.” In the

21

Application:

22

A.

Plaintiff must file an affidavit certifying that the claim or claims

23

presented are new and have never been raised by Plaintiff in a federal

24

court.

25

B.

26
27
28

Plaintiff must certify that, to the best of his knowledge, the claim or
claims presented are neither frivolous nor taken in bad faith.

C.

Plaintiff must affix a copy of this Order and list of all cases previously
filed involving similar or related causes of action.

-8-

1

D.

2

The failure to comply strictly with the terms of this Order shall be
sufficient grounds to deny leave to file.

3

IT IS ORDERED:

4

1.

5

Granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (Doc. 2).

6

2.

Denying as moot, Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Summary Judgment (Doc. 5).

7

3.

Dismissing this case with prejudice.

8

4.

Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of this

9

Order, why the injunction proposed in this Order should not be imposed.
Plaintiff’s response to this Order shall be limited to this issue.

10
11

5.

If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order or fails to persuade the Court

12

that an injunction should not be imposed, the Court will issue an injunction

13

with the terms set forth in this Order.

14

Dated this 26th day of September, 2024.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-9-

APPENDIX “A”
Cases Voluntarily Dismissed by Plaintiff before Court Action Taken
2:18-cv-02259MHB

Scott v. Department of Public
Service

filed 07/16/18 closed 08/09/18

2:20-cv-00087ESW

Scott v. Army Review Boards
Agency

filed 01/13/20 closed 08/25/20

2:21-cv-00579JJT--MTM

Scott v. Albertson's Incorporated et al

filed 04/05/21 closed 05/07/21

2:22-cv-00376JJT--MTM

Scott v. Maricopa County Superior
Court

filed 03/11/22 closed 03/30/22

2:22-cv-00606MHB

Scott v. United States Government

filed 04/12/22 closed 05/13/22

2:23-cv-00594JFM

Scott v. United States Department of
Treasury

filed 04/07/23 closed 04/20/23

2:23-cv-00641DWL

Scott v. Valley Metro Transit et al

filed 04/17/23 closed 05/01/23

2:23-cv-00678JFM

Scott v. United States Government et
al

filed 04/20/23 closed 05/17/23

2:23-cv-00697SMM

Scott v. U.S. Department of
Agriculture et al

filed 04/24/23 closed 06/20/23

2:23-cv-00700DLR

Scott v. AZ Corporate Commission

filed 04/24/23 closed 05/04/23

2:23-cv-00701CDB

Scott v. Unknown Parties

filed 04/24/23 closed 05/05/23

2:23-cv-00849MTL

Scott et al v. Kabul International
Airport et al

filed 05/15/23 closed 05/23/23

2:23-cv-00912SMB

Scott v. Unknow Party et al

filed 05/23/23 closed 06/01/23

2:23-cv-00964DWL

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 05/30/23 closed 06/30/23

2:23-cv-01025DJH

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 06/06/23 closed 06/21/23

2:23-cv-01094DWL

Scott v. Superior Court of Maricopa
County et al

filed 06/14/23 closed 06/30/23

2:23-cv-01268DJH

Scott v. Unknown Party et al

filed 07/10/23 closed 07/31/23

2:23-cv-01622MTL

Scott v. Unknown Parties et al

filed 08/10/23 closed 09/07/23

2:23-cv-01666MTL

Scott v. Air National Guard et al

filed 08/16/23 closed 09/01/23

2:23-cv-02026DGC

Scott v. Harris

2:23-cv-02326GMS

Scott v. Arizona Motor Vehicle Division filed 11/06/23 closed 12/13/23

2:23-cv-02338DWL

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 09/26/23 closed 10/10/23

filed 11/08/23 closed 11/20/23

2:24-cv-00236DLR

Scott v. United States Department of
Agriculture

filed 02/02/24 closed 03/20/24

2:24-cv-00298DGC

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 02/12/24 closed 02/28/24

2:24-cv-00352SPL

Scott v. United States Government

filed 02/20/24 closed 03/13/24

2:24-cv-00747DJH

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 04/03/24 closed 04/12/24

2:24-cv-00913MTL

Scott v. Harris et al

filed 04/22/24 closed 05/07/24

2:24-cv-00935SMM

Scott v. United States Veterans
Administration

filed 04/23/24 closed 05/03/24

2:24-cv-01043DJH

Scott v. United States Veterans
Administration

filed 05/07/24 closed 06/11/24

2:24-cv-01142DLR

Scott v. Harris et al

filed 05/16/24 closed 05/28/24

2:24-cv-01144SPL

Scott v. United States Department of
Veterans Affairs

filed 05/16/24 closed 06/12/24

2:24-cv-01149SPL

Scott v. United States Department of
Veterans Affairs

filed 05/17/24 closed 06/12/24

2:24-cv-01496DWL

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 06/20/24 closed 07/10/24

2:24-cv-02011SPL

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 08/09/24 closed 09/04/24

Cases Dismissed as Frivolous by the Court

2:10-cv-02022MEA

Scott v. NBA Suns et al

filed 09/22/10 closed 10/12/10

2:10-cv-02425FJM

Scott et al v. State Bar of Arizona et al

filed 11/09/10 closed 11/15/10

2:18-cv-01409DLR

Scott v. Thomas Nelson's Bibles

filed 05/07/18 closed 05/15/18

2:18-cv-02093JAS

Scott v. United States Army Board of
Corrections of Military Records

filed 07/02/18 closed 10/15/18

2:19-cv-04800ESW

Scott v. Hertz

filed 07/22/19 closed 10/23/19

2:20-cv-00966JJT

Scott v. United States Government

filed 05/18/20 closed 05/26/20

2:20-cv-00967MTM

Scott v. Thomas Nelson's Bible Industry

filed 05/18/20 closed 05/22/20

2:21-cv-02050JJT--MTM

Scott v. Maricopa County Superior Court filed 12/03/21 closed 12/20/21

2:22-cv-00614SMM-MTM

Scott v. Unknown Parties et al

filed 04/13/22 closed 08/30/22

2:22-cv-00697MTL

Scott v. United States Government

filed 04/25/22 closed 04/28/22

2:22-cv-00775JJT--MTM

Scott v. Maricopa County Superior
Court et al

filed 05/06/22 closed 06/02/22

2:22-cv-00856JJT

Scott v. Waste Management et al

filed 05/18/22 closed 06/03/22

2:22-cv-00972JJT--MTM

Scott v. Maricopa County Superior
Court et al

filed 06/03/22 closed 06/23/22

2:23-cv-01624DWL

Scott v. Universal Music Group et al

2:23-cv-01851JJT

Scott v. Monroe, County of et al

2:23-cv-02177JAT

Scott v. Harris

filed 10/19/23 closed 10/30/23

2:23-cv-02224MTL

Scott v. Arizona Bar Association et al

filed 10/25/23 closed 10/27/23

filed 08/10/23 closed 08/16/23

filed 09/01/23 closed 09/11/23

2:23-cv-02511DJH

Scott v. TBN et al

filed 12/05/23 closed 12/19/23

2:24-cv-00175JJT

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 01/25/24 closed 02/14/24

2:24-cv-00766GMS

Scott v. Monroe, County of

filed 04/05/24 closed 04/11/24

2:24-cv-00862DWL

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 04/16/24 closed 04/22/24

2:24-cv-01045SPL

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 05/07/24 closed 05/10/24

2:24-cv-01220SPL

Scott v. Unknown Parties

filed 05/22/24 closed 06/14/24

2:24-cv-01221SMM

Scott v. Unknown Party et al

filed 05/22/24 closed 08/22/24

2:24-cv-01343DWL

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 06/05/24 closed 06/21/24

2:24-cv-02000MTL

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 08/07/24 closed 08/13/24

2:24-cv-02001JAT

2:24-cv-02074SMM

Scott v. United States Department of
Veterans Affairs

Scott v. United States Department of
Veterans Affairs

filed 08/07/24 closed 08/14/24

filed 08/14/24 closed 08/29/24

Cases Dismissed after Leave to Amend Given and Plaintiff Failed to Amend
2:10-cv-02168JAT

Scott v. Caraballo et al

filed 10/08/10 closed 12/03/10

2:10-cv-02195ROS

Scott v. Southwest Network et al

filed 10/15/10 closed 01/27/11

2:10-cv-02242SRB

Scott et al v. Caraballo et al

filed 10/20/10 closed 12/08/10

2:10-cv-02425FJM

Scott et al v. State Bar of Arizona et al

filed 11/09/10 closed 11/15/10

2:15-cv-00329JJT

Scott v. Albertsons Incorporated

filed 02/23/15 closed 03/17/15

2:15-cv-01252JJT

Scott v. Army Review Boards Agency

2:15-cv-01424JJT

Scott v. Phoenix, City of et al

filed 07/06/15 closed 08/31/15

filed 07/24/15 closed 09/10/15

2:15-cv-01447NVW

Scott v. United States Probation
Department et al

filed 07/27/15 closed 09/10/15

2:15-cv-01516JJT

Scott v. Arizona Division of Child
Support Services et al

filed 08/06/15 closed 09/18/15

2:15-cv-02114SPL

Scott v. United States Department of
Defense

filed 10/21/15 closed 11/30/15

2:22-cv-00596MTL

Scott v. United States Veterans
Administration et al

2:22-cv-00607DLR

Scott, II v. Maricopa, County of et al

2:22-cv-01103SPL

Scott v. Maricopa County

filed 04/11/22 closed 05/20/22

filed 04/12/22 closed 05/04/22

filed 06/28/22 closed 08/17/22

2:22-cv-01079DLR

Scott v. United States of America

filed 06/23/22 closed 08/05/22

2:22-cv-01103SPL

Scott v. Maricopa County

filed 06/28/22 closed 08/17/22

Cases Dismissed after Leave to Amend Given and Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed

2:22-cv-00597DWL

Scott v. Phoenix Municipal Court et al

filed 04/11/22 closed 05/12/22

2:22-cv-00873DJH

Scott v. Washington et al

filed 05/20/22 closed 06/21/22

2:24-cv-00471SPL

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 03/06/24 closed 03/15/24

2:23-cv-00182JJT--MTM

Scott v. Maricopa County Police
Department

filed 01/25/23 closed 04/04/23

2:23-cv-00723SMB

Scott v. United States Government

filed 04/27/23 closed 05/17/23

2:22-cv-01022DJH

Scott v. Federal Aviation Admin

filed 06/13/22 closed 06/28/22

Cases Dismissed for Lack of Prosecution

2:03-cv-01028LOA

Scott v. DOD

filed 05/30/03 closed 08/27/03

2:07-cv-00696JWS

Scott v. Army Review Boards Agency

filed 04/04/07 closed 10/09/07

2:10-cv-01975ECV

Scott v. Unknown Parties

filed 09/14/10 closed 11/01/10

2:10-cv-01976MHB

Scott v. Safeway Insurance Company
et al

filed 09/14/10 closed 11/01/10

2:21-cv-00871SMM

Scott v. Unknown Parties

filed 05/17/21 closed 09/21/21

2:22-cv-01185SMM-JFM

Scott v. Unknown Parties et al

filed 07/13/22 closed 08/31/22

2:23-cv-00019SPL

Scott v. United States Department of
Defense

filed 01/03/23 closed 02/09/23

2:23-cv-00020JAT

Scott v. Harris et al

filed 01/03/23 closed 02/21/23

2:23-cv-00021DJH

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 01/03/23 closed 02/28/23

2:23-cv-00184SMB

Scott v. Unknown Party et al

filed 01/25/23 closed 03/17/23

Pending
2:24-cv-01872SMB

Scott v. Unknown Party

filed 07/29/24

2:24-cv-01873SMM

Scott v. Unknown Party et al

2:24-cv-02012GMS

Scott v. Rome, City of et al

2:24-cv-02073SMB

Scott v. State Farm et al

filed 07/29/24

filed 08/09/24

filed 08/14/24