Davis (ID 05698) v. Obama et al
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis 3 & 5 are denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint 4 is denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel 9 is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for D efault Judgement 10 is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Intervention 11 is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Claim Relief 12 is denied. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 06/21/17. Mailed to pro se party Anthony Leroy Davis by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANTHONY LEROY DAVIS,
BARACK HUSSAIN OBAMA, et al.,
Plaintiff, while an inmate at the El Dorado Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas
(EDCF), filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief and nominal damages based on conclusory and unintelligible claims that (a)
defendant President Obama is an illegal alien and has evaded immigration laws “by fraud
slave historical museum”; (b) defendants have acted together with fraud and malice and
treated “negros” differently because of race; and (c) defendants are “deliberately indifferent to
substantial risk that plaintiff’s decedent, fraught with civil-war ideations, would get shot by
The fees for filing a civil rights complaint in federal court total $400.00. Plaintiff has
submitted two Applications to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees (Docs. #3 and 5). Section
1915(g) of 28 U.S.C. provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil
action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
Plaintiff also lists other provisions and statutes with no explanation or factual basis showing how
they entitle him to relief. On April 17, 2017, plaintiff notified the court that he is now incarcerated at Hutchinson
Correctional Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas.
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or
appeal in a court that 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.
Id. Mr. Davis has long been designated a three-strikes litigant under Section 1915(g) and he
has repeatedly been advised that absent a showing of imminent danger, he has lost the right to
proceed in forma pauperis in federal court because of his repeated filing of frivolous lawsuits.2
The court has examined the complaint and exhibits and plaintiff’s motions and finds that Mr.
Davis does not allege a single fact to show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical
injury. Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff leave to proceed without prepayment of the full
filing fee. Mr. Davis has had several cases dismissed after he failed to pay the $400.00 filing
fee in full when given the opportunity. The court finds that giving plaintiff an opportunity to
amend or pay the filing fee would be futile. The Court dismisses this action because Mr. Davis
did not submit the $400.00 filing fee with his complaint and has made no effort to show that
he qualifies for the only exception to the three-strikes bar.
Also pending before the court are plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. #4),
Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. #9), Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #10), Motion for
Intervention by the United States (Doc. #11), and Motion for Claim Relief (Doc. #12).
Plaintiff’s motions are denied.
Because plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint also does not allege a single fact to
show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, the amendment is futile. No
constitutional right to appointment of counsel exists in a civil action, and the court concludes
that appointment of counsel is not warranted in this matter. Because plaintiff’s complaint is
See Davis v. Bacon, 234 Fed.Appx. 872, 2007 WL 1454437 *2 (10th Cir. 2007)(dismissing plaintiff's
appeal as frivolous and finding plaintiff now has three qualifying strikes under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g)). See also In re
Anthony Leroy Davis, 134 S. Ct. 188 (2013)(denying petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
finding petitioner has repeatedly abused the court’s process, and directing clerk not to accept further petitions in
non-criminal matters unless accompanied by the required docketing fee).
subject to screening under 29 U.S.C. § 1915A, it has not yet been served upon defendants and
the motion for default judgment is therefore premature. Finally, the motions for intervention
and for claim relief are incomprehensible, and the court therefore denies them.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis (Docs. #3 and 5) are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. #4)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. #9) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgement (Doc.
#10) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Intervention (Doc. #11) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Claim Relief (Doc. #12) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 21st day of June, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/Sam A. Crow
U.S. Senior District Judge
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?