Garrett v. State of Illinois Attorney General
Filing
3
Judge Rya W. Zobel: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.(PSSA, 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civil Action No. 14-10217-RWZ
JOHNNY GARRETT
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
February 14, 2014
ZOBEL, D.J.
For the reasons set forth below, this action is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2014, Plaintiff Johnny Garrett, an Illinois inmate incarcerated at the
Pinckneyville Correctional Center in Illinois, submitted for filing his self-prepared pleading
titled "Motion for a Time Cut or Reduction of Sentence." See Complaint ("Compl."), Docket
No. 1. The twelve page document consists of six handwritten pages as well as copies of
(1) one date stamped envelope addressed to the Central District of California, (2) one blank
page from a Section 2255 form, (3) one completed Offender Authorization for Payment
form; and (4) an attachment showing some transactions from Plaintiff's inmate trust fund
account. Id.
The caption of the complaint lists "State of Connecticut," "United States Supreme
Court" and "China Anne Mcclain" 1and is styled "United States of America, ex. rel. Plaintiffs
Johnny Garrett versus State of Illinois Attorney General, Respondent and People of the
State of Illinois." Pages two and five of the complaint contains abbreviated case captions
1
China Anne Mcclain is a fifteen year old television and film actress. See
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1942207 (last visited Jan. 29, 2014) .
and lists a list of legal claims in numerical order. The third page has the same caption as
the first page and contains a list of parties, courts and counsel.
A search of the federal Judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(PACER) service reveals that Plaintiff has been a frequent litigant in other federal courts.
Thirty-three civil actions have been filed under the name Johnny Garrett, and there are
sixteen civil cases listed under the name Johnnie Garrett. Although he has not filed an
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, Garrett knows that a prisoner may be
denied in forma pauperis status if he has had, on three or more prior occasions, an action
or appeal dismissed on the ground that it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (the so-called "three-strikes"
rule). Where a prisoner has "three-strikes," he may only proceed in forma pauperis if he
is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury." Id.
Garrett has already accumulated three strikes. See, e.g., Garrett v. State of Illinois, et al.,
13-cv-01298 JPG (S.D. Ill. Dec. 30, 2013)(dismissing Garrett's complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A and advising that the dismissal counts as his third and final allotted “strike”
under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
SCREENING
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold
review of prisoner complaints in civil actions that seek redress from a governmental
entity or officers or employees of a governmental entity, and to summarily dismiss any
claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
2
An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Fantastic or delusional scenarios involve
alleged facts that are irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
33 (1992). An action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted if it does not
plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Conversely, a complaint is plausible on its
face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Here, Garrett has not sought to proceed in forma pauperis at this time, and
therefore the screening of his Complaint is conducted under the auspices of 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. A pro se complaint is entitled to a liberal construction. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). Courts review pro se complaints according to "less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); see also Boivin v. Black, 225 F.3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 2000)
(explaining that "courts hold pro se pleadings to less demanding standards than those
drafted by lawyers"). However, pro se status does not insulate party from complying
with substantive and procedural law. Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886 (1st Cir. 1997).
DISCUSSION
After fulling considering Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety, as well as Plaintiff's
litigation history, the Court concludes that this action is frivolous and subject to summary
dismissal. Plaintiff's complaint is devoid of factual allegations and descriptions of any
actions taken by defendants and/or any other person. Plaintiff includes a laundry list of
complaints against the President of the United States, but fails to state any
comprehensible claim. The entire document consists of disconnected statements and is
3
similar to several unsuccessful actions that Garrett filed in other federal courts. See
Garrett v. State of Illinois, et al., 13-cv-01298 JPG (S.D. Ill. Dec. 30, 2013).
ORDER
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Rya W. Zobel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?