OPINION AND ORDER Denying Requests contained in Plaintiff's 1 Letter. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
IN RE JOHN CORRION,
CASE NO. 2:13-mc-51057
HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF PERMISSION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS OR TO FILE CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
John Corrion is a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Kinross Correctional Facility
in Kincheloe, Michigan. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915, and permission to file a civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in
the case of Corrion v. Heyns, et. al., No. 13-10746, in which he alleges that he was denied access
to the courts. This case was summarily dismissed because plaintiff had not first obtained
permission to file this lawsuit from the presiding judge. Prior to filing this complaint, plaintiff
had been enjoined from filing lawsuits in this district without first obtaining leave from the
presiding judge. This case is before this Court acting as Presiding Judge. For the reasons that
follow, the Court will deny plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis or to file a civil
rights complaint in Case No. 13-10746.
Plaintiff has been a frequent filer of civil rights complaints. Judge George Caram Steeh
recently reviewed plaintiff’s history of filing numerous frivolous and malicious actions. See
“Order Striking Complaint,” Corrion v. Corrion, No. 12-15484 (E.D. Mich. February 1, 2013).
Judge Steeh noted that plaintiff had filed at least twenty-eight lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, twenty of which were dismissed either for a
failure to pay the filing fee after denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis or for being
frivolous or malicious or failing to state a claim. Id. at 2. Judge Steeh stated that plaintiff “is a
vexatious litigant who will not stop filing these actions absent action of the court” and ordered
plaintiff barred from filing further actions in this court without first seeking leave from the
presiding judge. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff subsequently attempted to file a lawsuit, which was summarily dismissed
because plaintiff had failed to seek permission from the presiding judge. See Corrion v. Heyns,
et. al., No. 13-10746 (E.D. Mich. February 28, 2013).
Plaintiff has now filed a request from the presiding judge to grant him permission to
proceed in forma pauperis and proceed with the complaint that he filed in Case No. 13-10746.
This Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit. The Court further notes that plaintiff has failed to allege or show
that he has not raised these allegations in a prior civil action.
This Court will deny plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis or to file the
current civil rights complaint. Plaintiff has been enjoined by another judge in this district from
filing lawsuits because he is a “vexatious litigant.” Plaintiff’s “history of unsubstantiated and
vexatious litigation amounts to continued abuse of his in forma pauperis status.” See Edwards v.
Johns, 450 F. Supp. 2d 755, 756 (E.D. Mich. 2006)(internal quotation omitted). This Court will
not grant plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis or to file this complaint because he has failed to
show that his allegations have any merit and that they are not a repetition of plaintiff’s prior
complaints. Id., at 757.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff John Corrion is DENIED permission to
proceed in forma pauperis or to file a lawsuit in Case No. 13-10746.
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 23, 2013
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or
party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on July 23, 2013.
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?