Bussie et al v. Boehner et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice, denying 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Anthony Bussie. Further, this dismissal shall count as another "strike" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Trust Fund Officer at Philadelphia-Federal Detention Center. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 2/14/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTHONY BUSSIE, #64105-050,
)
BARACK OBAMA, GEORGE BUSH, Jr. )
and BILL CLINTON,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN BOEHNER
)
and TOM COBURN,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 14-cv-00077-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Anthony Bussie’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. 2). Plaintiff, who is a pre-trial detainee at the
Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, seeks leave to proceed in this case without prepayment
of the Court’s usual $350.00 filing fee in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 For the
following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be DENIED
and this case DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a federal court may permit a prisoner who is
indigent to bring a “suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal,” without prepayment of fees
upon presentation of an affidavit stating the prisoner’s assets together with “the nature of the
action . . . and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
In the case of civil actions, a prisoner’s affidavit of indigence must be accompanied by
“a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner
1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, effective May 1, 2013, an additional $50.00 administrative fee is also to
be assessed in all civil actions, unless pauper status has been granted.

1

for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint . . . , obtained from the
appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.”

28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2). In this case, Plaintiff has tendered an affidavit of indigence that is sufficient as to
form.
However, Plaintiff is nonetheless barred from proceeding IFP by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). According to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a
civil judgment in forma pauperis “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United
States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). On these grounds, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.
Court documents are public records, and the Court can take judicial notice of
them. See Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994). Review of documents
filed on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) website (www.pacer.gov)
discloses that Plaintiff has already filed at least three previous cases that were dismissed as
frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. See Bussie v. Attorney General, Case No.
3:13-CV-476-WMC (W.D. Wis., dismissed July 30, 2013); Bussie v. Federal Election Comm’n,
Case No. 3:13-CV-477-WMC (W.D. Wis., dismissed July 30, 2013); Bussie v. Federal Deposit
Ins. Corp., Case No. 1:13-CV-23000-UU (S.D. Fla., dismissed September 24, 2013); Bussie
v. United States, Case No. 3:11-CV-1475-FLW (D. N.J., dismissed March 28, 2011); and Bussie
v. Brauman, Case No. 3:13-CV-1055-AWT (D. Conn., dismissed July 31, 2013). Moreover, the
Court notes that Plaintiff is being held in federal custody on allegations that he threatened to
harm a member of the United States Congress. See United States v. Bussie, 12-cr-229 (D.N.J.).

2

Court records reflect that Plaintiff’s trial has been continued indefinitely for reasons related to
concerns over Plaintiff’s psychiatric health. A review of cases on PACER reveals that since
being taken into custody in 2012, Plaintiff has filed a slew of cases in district courts across the
country.

The cases contain a myriad of incoherent claims and allegations and have been

dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.
Because Plaintiff has accumulated at least three “strikes” for purposes of
Section 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in this case unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. Plaintiff has failed to satisfy this requirement. The United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explained that “imminent danger” within the meaning of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) requires a “real and proximate” threat of serious physical injury to a
prisoner. Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Lewis v. Sullivan,
279 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2002)). In general, courts “deny leave to proceed IFP when a
prisoner’s claims of imminent danger are conclusory or ridiculous.”

Id. at 331

(citing Heimermann v. Litscher, 337 F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 2003)). Additionally, “[a]llegations
of past harm do not suffice” to show imminent danger; rather, “the harm must be imminent or
occurring at the time the complaint is filed,” and when prisoners “allege only a past injury that
has not recurred, courts deny them leave to proceed IFP.” Id. at 330 (citing Abdul-Wadood
v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1996)).
Plaintiff does not claim to be in imminent danger in his IFP motion (Doc. 2) or his
complaint (Doc. 1).

The complaint sets forth several rambling and incoherent claims and

demands $1.2 trillion in damages, but it makes no mention of imminent danger or of serious
physical injury (Doc. 1). Because Plaintiff has not shown that he is under imminent danger of

3

serious physical injury so as to escape the “three-strikes” rule of Section 1915(g), he cannot
proceed IFP in this case.
Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to fully disclose his litigation history in the present
matter (Doc. 1, p.3). The Court-issued complaint form explicitly states, “If there is more than
one lawsuit, you must describe the additional lawsuits on another sheet of paper . . . . Failure to
comply with this provision may result in summary denial of your complaint.” (Doc. 1, p. 3)
Nonetheless, Plaintiff lists only one other case he has filed. A plaintiff’s failure to disclose his
litigation history, particularly when he seeks to proceed IFP, may be grounds for immediate
dismissal of the suit. Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725 (7th Cir. 2008) (termination of
the suit is an appropriate sanction for struck-out prisoner who took advantage of court’s
oversight and was granted leave to proceed IFP); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858–59 (7th Cir.
1999) (litigant who sought and obtained leave to proceed IFP without disclosing his three-strike
status committed a fraud upon the court); see also Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir.
2011) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where Court-issued complaint form clearly warned
Plaintiff that failure to provide litigation history would result in dismissal).
In light of controlling authority on this issue and the purely frivolous nature of
Plaintiff’s claims, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) and summarily DISMISSES this action with prejudice.
DISPOSITION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with
prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to disclose his litigation history and based on the

4

purely frivolous nature of his claim. Further, this dismissal shall count as another “strike” within
the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of the Plaintiff is
directed to remit the $400.00 district court filing fee from Plaintiff’s prison trust fund account if
such funds are available. If he does not have $400.00 in his account, the agency must send an
initial payment of 20% of the current balance or the average balance during the past six months,
whichever amount is higher. Thereafter, Plaintiff shall make monthly payments of 20% of the
preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s prison trust fund account (including all deposits
to the inmate account from any source) until the $400.00 is paid in full. The agency having
custody of Plaintiff shall forward these payments from the Plaintiff’s trust fund account to the
Clerk of this Court each time the Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the $400.00 district
court filing fee is paid. Payments shall reference Case No. 14-v-00077-MJR and shall be mailed
to: Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, P.O. Box
249, East St. Louis, Illinois 62202.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this

Order to the Trust Fund Officer at Philadelphia-Federal Detention Center.
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the
Clerk of Court informed of any change in his address. This shall be done in writing and not later
than 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order
will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 14, 2014
s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

5