MCKENZIE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 11 Order dismissing case. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 6/14/2013. (lcjeb2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NOLAN MCKENZIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 13-458 (JEB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 9, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Nolan McKenzie filed a 60-page Complaint (with 77
additional pages of attachments) that named approximately 45 Defendants – many of them
judges and courts in Kansas – and made no sense whatsoever. Although empowered to dismiss
it straightaway, the Court, in a courtesy to Plaintiff, issued an Order that permitted him to file an
amended complaint by June 11 that contained “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). See ECF No. 2 at 2. The
Court warned him that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Id. Plaintiff first responded
by filing a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Reply to Memorandum, Opinion and Order,” see ECF
No. 8, which, in typically opaque language, makes reference to his difficulty as a pro se Plaintiff.
On June 14, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, which is essentially the same document as
his “Reply.” See ECF No. 10. This document is only two pages long, contains the single legal
conclusion that “Plaintiff has sustained damages in excess of $75,000,” id. at 1, and alleges
neither a single legal claim against any Defendant nor a single fact in support. Dismissal is the
Court’s only course.
Before doing so, the Court offers one observation: Perhaps Plaintiff has decided to
venture into this jurisdiction because, as a vexatious litigant, he has been barred from filing
without leave of Court in the District of Kansas. See McKenzie v. United Access, No. 12-2395,
2012 WL 5869897, at *5 (D. Kan. Nov. 19, 2012). As the District Court there explained, “A
review of this history reveals a pattern of abusive, vexatious, unnecessary and threatening filings.
While the sheer volume of Rev. McKenzie’s litigation is noteworthy, the Court is more troubled
by the vexatious, harassing, and duplicative nature of his litigation.” Id. at *4.
Although the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice, it cautions Plaintiff that
this venue is no more hospitable to frivolous filings than is his home state. An Order of
dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
Date: June 14, 2013
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?