Staten v. Stith et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE; DENYING 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by James E. Staten. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. The plaintiff is hereby BANNED from filing any paper with Un ited States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, or its personnel, and BANNED from having others file papers on his behalf, with an exception for any criminal case in which Staten is a defendant and for any application for habeas cor pus that he may wish to file. The Clerk of the Court in this district is DIRECTED to RETURN UNFILED ALL PAPERS THAT PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTS TO FILE, EXCEPT PAPERS IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN WHICH LITIGANT MIGHT BE A DEFENDANT OR ANY HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION HE MIGHT FILE. THE CLERK SHALL ALLOW PETITIONER TO FILE A MOTION TO MODIFY OR VACATE THIS ORDER ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 20, 2015. Signed by Judge William D. Stiehl on 02/20/2013. (jst)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES E. STATEN also known as The
Messiah,
Plaintiff,
v.
TERRANCE STITH and RUDY
MCINTOSH,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 12-CV-972-WDS

ORDER
STIEHL, District Judge:
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 2), motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3), and motion for service of process at government expense
(Doc. 4).
Before granting a motion for pauper status, or appointing counsel, a federal court must
carefully review the complaint filed by the pro se litigant. Under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, the Court must screen any indigent’s complaint (whether filed by a prisoner or non-prisoner)
and dismiss any complaint if (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue, (2) the action is frivolous or
malicious, (3) the action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (4) the action
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); Hutchinson v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 1997).
Pro se complaints must be construed liberally. Lieberman v. Thomas, 505 F.3d 665, 671
(7th Cir. 2007). Even so, the Court is unable to discern plaintiff’s legal claims or what remedies
he is seeking. In his complaint, he alleges that defendant Stith collects “[m]oney from the Arabs
without Reporting it to the IRS. And Drinks on the Job while on Medication tearing up the

Taxpayers vehicles.” As to defendant McIntosh, plaintiff alleges that “[h]e was hired by the City
to Protect Drug Dealers that wasn’t a Natural Born Citizen such as the Arabs which he to buys food
stamps from his Tenants under Section 8 & not reporting it to the IRS.”
Under the section entitled “Request for Relief,” plaintiff makes a number of nonsensical
requests and statements devoid of any recognizable legal claims. In rambling fashion, he claims
that he was evicted without notice, became homeless, was sent to jail and had to call the police to
get a change of clothes, had to study for class and was dropped from school as his books were
being held hostage. He states that the people around the world will live by the Laws of Moses and
the U.S. Constitution, and that “the Question to you is that you know you have the Right to Remain
Silent & So do I.” He appears to quote Bible verses, and also appears to make a threat, stating
“The Good News is those Idoits [sic] let me Live & the Bad News they should have Killed me.
I’m going after each individual Separate with Back Pay.” Under the section marked “Jury
Demand” the plaintiff states: “We can settle this out of Court, I wonder Why Cops beat on People
while their HANDCUFF? The answer those are Scared men Moves their Not like Rambo or
JESUS or Rev. James you have to have Real Guts.” Plaintiff attaches an East Saint Louis Police
Department Citizen Complaint Form, which does not reflect whether it has been filed with the
police department, and which contains what appears to be a complaint about water leaking from
the ceiling of his apartment.
Upon consideration of the complaint, the Court FINDS that the action is clearly frivolous,
fails to state a cause of action, and does not seek a legal remedy. Staten has not met the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and the Court, therefore, DENIES plaintiff’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this cause of
action, in its entirety. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.

2

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
The Court notes the plaintiff’s long history of filing lawsuits in this district, most of which
were dismissed as frivolous suits. The Court’s research revealed at least sixteen other cases filed
by the plaintiff starting in 2007. A brief overview of the cases filed by “James Staten,” “James E.
Staten,” “Rev. James E. Staten, The Messiah,” or “James E. Staten – The Messiah” follows:
07-CV-214-MJR, dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 07-CV-570-GPM, dismissed
for failure to state a claim and pursuant to § 1915(e)(2); 07-CV-596-DRH, same;
07-CV-627-GPM, same, and counting action as one of plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g); 07-CV-665-MJR, dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and
for failure to state a claim; 07-CV-718-GPM, dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or to submit
a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis; 08-CV-790-DRH, dismissed; 11-CV-36-JPG,
dismissed for failure to state a claim and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);
11-CV-38-GPM dismissed for failure to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); 11-CV-39-DRH, same; 11-CV-269-JPG, same, and warning Staten that the
commencement of any frivolous or meritless proceedings in the future may lead to sanctions,
including and up to a general ban on opening new cases with this Court; 11-CV-270-GPM,
dismissed as frivolous; 11-CV-274-GPM, dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 11-CV-275-DRH, dismissed for failure to state a claim, as frivolous, for lack of
standing, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and warning Staten that filing subsequent
frivolous cases will result in sanctions or a general ban against filing any lawsuits;
11-CV-303-JPG, same; 11-CV-304-DRH, same.
The Court notes that plaintiff has been warned on no less than four occasions by Judges in
this District that his commencement of frivolous lawsuits would lead to sanctions, up to and

3

including a general ban against filing further lawsuits. (See Case Nos. 11-cv-269-JPG,
11-cv-275-DRH, 11-cv-303-JPG, and 11-cv-304-DRH). The Court will not warn Mr. Staten a
fifth time. The Court will no longer allow the plaintiff to “clog[] the processes of the court and . .
. burden[] judges and staff to the detriment of litigants having meritorious cases.” Support Sys.
Intl., Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 185 (7th Cir. 1995), overruled on other grounds by Lee v. Clinton,
209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000). It appears from plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis that he is indigent, and would be unable to pay a fine, thereby making a monetary
sanction futile. The Court also considered allowing plaintiff to seek leave to file any papers with
this Court before filing them, but believes that this would not deter plaintiff from filing frivolous
suits, and would simply lead to additional filings under a different title, which would still consume
the time and resources of this Court. See id. at 186 (The problem with allowing the plaintiff to file
papers with the express permission of a judge “is that it places on the court, specifically the
designated judge, the burden of reading the litigant’s requests for authorization to file. It allows
the barrage to continue, just with different labels on the filings and perhaps with fewer judges
having to read the filings.”).
Accordingly, under these circumstances, the Court finds the following to be the most
appropriate and effective sanction: plaintiff is hereby BANNED from filing any paper with United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, or its personnel, and BANNED from
having others file papers on his behalf, with an exception for any criminal case in which Staten is a
defendant and for any application for habeas corpus that he may wish to file. The Court will NOT
make an exception for civil rights suits because Staten “could no doubt recast his frivolous filings
in the form of civil rights complaints, a ploy that the court could defeat only by a laborious
specification of the subject matter encompassed by the filings—laborious not only to draft, but

4

also to monitor.” Id. at 187.
As “[p]erpetual orders are generally a mistake,” Mr. Staten MAY submit to this court, NO
EARLIER THAN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, a motion to modify
or vacate the order. Id. at 186.
The Clerk of the Court in this district is DIRECTED to RETURN UNFILED ALL
PAPERS THAT PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTS TO FILE, EXCEPT PAPERS IN ANY
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN WHICH LITIGANT MIGHT BE A DEFENDANT OR
ANY HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION HE MIGHT FILE.
THE CLERK SHALL ALLOW PETITIONER TO FILE A MOTION TO MODIFY
OR VACATE THIS ORDER ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 20, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 20, 2013
/s/ WILLIAM D. STIEHL
DISTRICT JUDGE

5