Hurt v. National Museum of African American History and Culture et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge David J. Hale; Upon initial screening of the complaint, the instant action will be dismissed. IT IS ORDERED that the motions to amend (DNs 7, 8, 9, and 10) are DENIED. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (ERH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
TYRONE HURT,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-59-DJH
NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN
AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE et al.,
Defendants.
* * * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Tyrone Hurt filed the instant pro se action proceeding in forma pauperis. This
matter is now before the Court on initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). Upon initial screening of the complaint, the instant action
will be dismissed for the reasons that follow.
I.
Plaintiff filed the complaint on his own paper. Plaintiff lists his address as located in
Washington, DC. He sues the National Museum of African History and Culture and the North
Star Society, both of which he identifies as located in Washington, DC. While not entirely clear,
he also appears to name the United States of America as a Defendant. Plaintiff states that he is
bringing the action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
The complaint, while largely illegible and incoherent, alleges violations of the Thirteenth
Amendment based on the “unconstitutional capture of [illegible] African Americans from the
continent of Africa in violation of humanitarian [illegible] . . . .” It also alleges that the
application of the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment and references the First
Amendment. Attached to the complaint is a fundraising appeal from the National Museum of
African American History and Culture which, according to the attachment, currently is under
construction and will be part of the Smithsonian Museum on the National Mall.
II.
The complaint must be dismissed for several reasons. First, Defendants are not located in
the Western District of Kentucky, and nothing in the complaint describes any events occurring in
the Western District of Kentucky or gives any reason for filing this action in this Court. The
complaint is therefore subject to dismissal for improper venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Second, because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must review the
instant action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); McGore, 114 F.3d at 608-09. Upon review, the Court must
dismiss a case at any time if it determines that an action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as
frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. In this case, the complaint contains conclusory
allegations of constitutional violations, which the Court is not required to accept. See Tackett v.
M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he district court need not
accept a ‘bare assertion of legal conclusions.’”) (quoting Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum,
58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995)). The complaint contains no factual assertions to support any
legal theories upon which a valid federal claim may rest, and the allegations are baseless.
2
Furthermore, a review of the federal judiciary’s online database, Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (“PACER”), shows that Plaintiff has filed hundreds of cases in federal courts
across the country. See Hurt v. Encinia, No. H-15-2602, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147815, at *6
(S.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2015) (“A national litigation index reveals that since 1985, Hurt has filed at
least 468 civil actions in federal courts across the country.”). Plaintiff has been deemed an
abusive and vexatious litigant by numerous other courts. See, e.g., Hurt v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 544
F.3d 308, 310 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“[W]e think ‘the number, content, frequency, and disposition’ of
his filings shows an especially abusive pattern . . . . Hurt has brought numerous meritless
appeals--suits targeting institutions, people and inanimate objects--while asking for sums of
money dwarfing the size of the Federal Government’s annual budget.”); Hurt v. Ferguson,
Missouri, Cleveland, Ohio, Baltimore, Maryland, All Law Enforcement Officials Within This
Nation Et Al, Forty-Seven States To The United States Of America, No. 1:15-cv-01054-WTLTAB, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89669, at *4 (S.D. Ind. July 10, 2015) (“Mr. Hurt’s abusive
patterns must come to an end. Mr. Hurt’s cases represent countless hours of judicial time that
could be spent on cases which state viable claims.”); Hurt v. Lanier, No. 1:14-cv-484-GZS, 2014
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163201, at *4 (D. Me. Nov. 19, 2014) (“Taking judicial notice of the other
actions Plaintiff has recently filed with this Court as well as his filing history in other districts,
there is ample evidence that Hurt is an abusive and vexatious litigant.”).
Indeed, near in time to the filing of the instant action, Plaintiff filed cases concerning the
National Museum of African American History and Culture with almost identical allegations in
at least two other district courts. See Hurt v. United States of America, No. 3:16-cv-106-MMH
(M.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2016); Hurt v. United States of America, No. 2:16-cv-132-JAD (D. Nev.
Jan. 22, 2016). Filing identical lawsuits in multiple district courts is abusive and wasteful of
3
judicial resources and warrants dismissal under § 1915(e) as frivolous and malicious. See Cato
v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (complaint with the same allegations as
in an earlier complaint that had been dismissed was properly dismissed under § 1915 as frivolous
or malicious); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (duplicative or repetitious
litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under § 1915 as malicious).
A federal court may dismiss a suit when it is duplicative of a suit already pending or dismissed in
another federal court. See, e.g., Lea v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 440, 446 (2015); McReynolds
v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 694 F.3d 873, 888-89 (7th Cir. 2012). Therefore, the Court will dismiss
the action as frivolous and malicious.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, a separate Order dismissing the action will be entered
consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
Since filing the original complaint, Plaintiff filed four documents which he captioned
“Amended Complaints.” The filings are similar in substance to the complaint and are largely
illegible and incoherent. The Court construes these filings as motions to amend the complaint.
Because this matter will be dismissed and the Court having found Plaintiff to be an abusive filer,
the amendments would be futile. See Miller v. Calhoun Cty., 408 F.3d 803, 817 (6th Cir. 2005)
(“A court need not grant leave to amend . . . where amendment would be ‘futile.’”) (quoting
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motions to amend (DNs 7, 8, 9, and 10) are DENIED.
Date:
July 19, 2016
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4415.010
4
David J. Hale, Judge
United States District Court
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?