HURT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASES & IMPOSING FILING RESTRICTIONS By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
TYRONE HURT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 1:14-cv-518-GZS
)
)
)
)
)

____________________________________________________________________________
TYRONE HURT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 1:14-cv-519-GZS
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER DISMISSING CASES & IMPOSING FILING RESTRICTIONS

Before the Court in the two above-captioned cases are pro se Complaints, each containing
requests within the body of the Complaint to proceed in forma pauperis. It appears both
Complaints were mailed to this Court on December 1, 2014. Generously construing the inserts in
the present Complaints (ECF No. 1) to contain a request to proceed in forma pauperis and
assuming Plaintiff’s financial information is as represented in his previously filed application to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4 in D. Me. Docket # 1:14-cv-416-GZS), the Court hereby
GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in these two actions (ECF No. 2).

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is now required to DISMISS both of
these actions. The Court readily finds that both illegible Complaints are frivolous and fail to state
any cognizable claim. The Court also hereby certifies that any appeal from this dismissal would
not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
The Court notes that with the filing of these two cases, Mr. Hurt has filed a total of sixteen
cases in the District of Maine since August 2014. His first action, Hurt v. Ferguson, Missouri, et
al. (D. Me. Docket # 1:14-cv-337-GZS), was filed on August 21, 2014 and subsequently dismissed
for failure to state a claim. (See ECF Nos. 5 & 8 in D. Me. Docket # 1:14-cv-337-GZS.) His
second action, Hurt v. Boasberg, et al. (D. Me. Docket # 1:14-cv-396-GZS), was filed on October
6, 2014 and named as defendants a federal judge, the United States Secret Service, and the D.C.
City Council. In that case, a Recommended Decision found the complaint was likewise subject to
dismissal after review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court has since affirmed
that Recommended Decision and dismissed Hurt’s second case. See ECF No. 7 in D. Me. Docket
# 1:14-cv-396-GZS.

Likewise, the Court has summarily dismissed twelve other actions filed by

Hurt. See D. Me. Docket #s 1:14-cv-416-GZS, 1:14-cv-461-GZS, 1:14-cv-463-GZS, 1:14-cv-464GZS, 1:14-cv-465-GZS, 1:14-cv-466-GZS, 1:14-cv-484-GZS, 1:14-cv-498-GZS, 1:14-cv-499GZS, 2:14-cv-501-GZS, 1:14-cv-502-GZS and 1:14-cv-503-GZS.
The Court gave its first Cok warning to Mr. Hurt in an order dated November 19, 2014.
See ECF No. 2 in D. Me Docket # 1:14-cv-484-GZS. It reiterated that Order on November 24,
2014, stating in part: “the Court will not allow Mr. Hurt to continue filing complaints that are both
illegible and frivolous and thereby waste both judicial time and resources within the District of
Maine. If the Court receives another frivolous or illegible complaint after Mr. Hurt has received
this Order and the Court’s prior Cok warning, it will declare Mr. Hurt an abusive litigant and

2

impose filing restrictions.” November 24, 2014 Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 3 in D. Me Docket
# 1:14-cv-499-GZS). It appears that Mr. Hurt mailed the two current Complaints after receiving
these two prior warnings as well as multiple other orders clearly indicating that his prior filings
with the Court were illegible and insufficient. However, a quick review of the present Complaints
shows that Mr. Hurt has made no effort to improve his filings and continues to simply mail papers
to this Court that state no cognizable claim. These filings appear designed to simply waste the
Court’s time and resources and thereby delay the administration of justice in other cases.
Therefore, the Court finds Mr. Hurt to be an abusive litigant within the District of Maine and
hereby ENJOINS Tyrone Hurt from commencing any action in the District of Maine without prior
leave of the Court.
The Clerk is directed to refuse to file or docket any paper or pleading it receives from Mr.
Hurt that purports to be a new Complaint without a prior order of the Court. Mr. Hurt may file
one notice of appeal in any of his existing cases. However, the Court has already determined that
such appeals are not taken in good faith and, by allowing notices of appeal to be filed on the docket,
the Court is not changing that prior determination. Any other mailing received from Mr. Hurt that
does not contain a separate, clearly legible motion seeking leave to file shall be returned to Mr.
Hurt without any further order or action by the Court. Mr. Hurt is instructed that repeated failure
to comply with this Order’s filing restrictions may result in the Court imposing additional
sanctions.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 9th day of December, 2014.

3