Polk

Filing 5

ORDER Denying Petition for Leave to File Complaint 1 and Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE RONALD A. POLK,
Petitioner,

Case No. 17-mc-50360
Honorable Denise Page Hood

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT
AND
DISMISSING CASE

Ronald A. Polk seeks permission for leave to file a complaint pursuant to a
court order dated January 23, 2006 entered by the Honorable David M. Lawson
requiring Polk to first request leave to file another suit in this District. (See Case No.
05-10134) Polk’s latest attempt to file a lawsuit before this District was in 2014. (See
Case No. 14-13352) The Honorable Thomas L. Ludington in the 2014 case required
Polk to submit the following before filing a new lawsuit:
It is further ORDERED that before Plaintiff files a
lawsuit in this Court, he must file: (1) a motion for
permission to file the pleading; (2) an affidavit
demonstrating that his allegations have merit and are not
repetitious of previous complaints; and (3) a copy of the
Court’s final order on this matter. Prior to this Petition,
Plaintiff had filed or has sought to file more than twenty
complaints.

Polk v. Montcalm County, et al., Case No. 14-13352, Doc. No. 7. Plaintiff did file
permission to file a pleading, but did not submit an affidavit nor a copy of Judge
Ludington’s order with his papers.
The Sixth Circuit has held that district courts may properly enjoin vexatious
litigants from filing further actions against a defendant without first obtaining leave
of court. Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998); see
also, Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 1987). “There is nothing
unusual about imposing prefiling restrictions in matters with a history of repetitive or
vexatious litigation.” Feathers, 141 F.3d at 269. A district court need only impose
“a conventional prefiling review requirement.” Id. The traditional tests applicable to
preliminary injunction motions need not be applied since the district court’s prefiling
review affects the district court’s inherent power and does not deny a litigant access
to courts of law. See In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1262 (2d Cir. 1984). A
prefiling review requirement is a judicially imposed remedy whereby a plaintiff must
obtain leave of the district court to assure that the claims are not frivolous or
harassing. See e.g., Ortman v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 807, 811 (6th Cir. 1996). Often, a
litigant is merely attempting to collaterally attack prior unsuccessful suits. Filipas,
835 F.2d at 1146.
A review of Polk’s proposed Complaint shows that it is a frivolous suit and fails
2

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Ana Leon T. v. Fed. Reserve
Bank, 823 F.2d 928, 930 (6th Cir. 1987). Polk cites a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
by the Defendants Warren Township, Warren Township Board and Warren Township
Zoning Board. In the case before Judge Lawson, Polk made the same allegations
against a different municipality that he is a farmer under the Michigan Right to Farm
Act and that Defendants failed to provide him with the appropriate due process
hearing. (See Case No. 05-10134, Doc. No. 4, Pg ID 42-44) As in that case, Polk in
this case failed to allege any policy or custom of Warren Township which contributed
to any alleged injuries. Municipalities are only liable if a plaintiff’s injury was caused
by an unconstitutional “policy” or custom” of the municipality. Stemler v. City of
Florence, 126 F.3d 856, 865 (6th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Ronald A. Polk’s Request to Allow Him to File a New
§ 1983 Action/Petition for Leave to File Complaint (Doc. No. 1, filed March 10,
2017) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Application to Proceed Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 3, filed March 10, 2017) is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Emergency Stay of any action
by Warren Township (Doc. No. 4, filed March 10, 2017) is DENIED as MOOT.
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. No. 2, filed March 10,
2017) and the Miscellaneous Case Number 17-mc-50360 are DISMISSED and
DESIGNATED CLOSED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: April 11, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on April 11, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4