Judd v. State of Georgia Secretary of State et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 8 Motion for Total Waiver of Filing Fees and Costs Under Twenty Fourth Amendment; denying 10 Motion to Reopen Case; denying 10 Motion to Stay. Ordered by Judge C. Ashley Royal on 7/27/11 (lap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
VS.
:
:
STATE OF GEORGIA SECRETARY
:
OF STATE; STATE OF GEORGIA,
:
:
Defendants
:
____________________________________:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-233 (CAR)

ORDER

Plaintiff KENNETH RUSSELL JUDD, a prisoner incarcerated in the Federal Correctional
Institute in Texarkana, Texas, filed a pro se “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Preliminary
Injunction; Elections-Voting” in this Court on June 9, 2011. (Doc. 1). In this Complaint, he
petitioned the “Court for Declaratory Judgment and Preliminary Injunction with regards to
placement of Keith Russell Judd on this State’s 2012 Presidential Primary Election Ballot as a
Democratic Candidate for President of the United States.” (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also sought leave to
proceed without prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee or security therefor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). (Doc. 3).
In an Order dated June 16, 2011, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), denied
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his action without prejudice.1 (Doc.
5).
Plaintiff has now filed a “Motion for Total Waiver of Filing Fees and Costs Under Twenty
Fourth Amendment.” (Doc. 8). Plaintiff states that he “moves this Court for a total waiver of filing
fees and costs pursuant to the Twenty Fourth Amendment providing the right of citizens to vote in
Federal Elections ‘shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of

1

The Court explained that the U.S. District Web PACER Docket Report showed that Plaintiff had
filed approximately 288 civil actions in various federal courts throughout the United States, as well as
hundreds of appeals. More than three of the actions were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or as failing
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Additionally, Plaintiff was not qualified for the
“imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception of § 1915(g).

failure to pay any poll tax or other tax’.” (Doc. 8). The Court’s June 16, 2011 Order had absolutely
nothing to do with anyone’s right to vote. The Court merely found that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915 (g), Plaintiff could not proceed in forma pauperis in his lawsuit.
To any extent that Plaintiff is claiming the requirement to pay a filing fee violates the
Twenty-Fourth Amendment, the Court finds no merit in such an argument. See Judd v. Sec’y of
State of Oregon, No. 11-6176-HO, (Oregon, Eugene Division, July 15, 2011). The three-strikes
provision codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g) applies to any “civil action” brought by a prisoner.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Motion for Total Waiver of Filing Fees and Costs Under Twenty Fourth
Amendment” (Doc. 8) is DENIED.
Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion to Reopen and Stay Proceedings Pending Decision by
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation No. 2276 to Transfer for Consolidated–Coordinated
Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407; Class Action Certification Pending.” Plaintiff claims that one
of the issues pending in this Multi-District Litigation is “waiver of all fees and filing fees, pursuant
to the Twenty Fourth Amendment, and for a determination that the PLRA, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, et seq.,
is unconstitutional and does not apply to Voting Rights actions.” Plaintiff has completely failed to
allege facts or provide authority entitling him to have these proceedings reopened and stayed. See
Judd v. Sec’y of S.D., No. 11-4080-KES, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77854 at *4 (D. S. D. July 18,
2011)(explaining that district courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings when appropriate to
control its docket and denying to stay Judd’s claim because they are “frivolous on their face and
because his complaint had not been served upon defendants). Therefore, this Motion (Doc. 10) is
also DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 27th day of July, 2011.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

lnb