Jackson v. Obama
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND SANCTIONING PLAINTIFF: this action is dismissed. Plaintiff may not file any additional pro se complaints without first obtaining leave of Court to do so. Clerk of this Court is directed to return to Jackson, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar. Clerk Ordered to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address provided. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 7/17/2017 (wld)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
MADIE RUTH JACKSON
CAUSE NO. 1:17CV167-LG-RHW
BARACK OBAMA and JULIE THEATER
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND SANCTIONING PLAINTIFF
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte for consideration of dismissal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 of the Complaint filed by pro se
Plaintiff Madie Ruth Jackson and for consideration of instituting sanctions against
Plaintiff for her repeated frivolous filings. For the reasons stated below, the Court
will dismiss this action and sanction Plaintiff.
On June 29, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint
that includes specific allegations and causes of action against each of the named
defendants, or otherwise show cause why her current Complaint should not be
dismissed. (See Order 2, ECF No. 3). The Court further stated that “[a]ny
amendment or response must also clearly set forth the basis for the Court’s
jurisdiction over this action. Otherwise, the Court will dismiss this action.” (See
id.). On July 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a  “Response to Order” in which she
essentially re-stated her claims and again failed to set forth the basis for the Court’s
The Court has reviewed the Complaint and Response, and liberally construed
all allegations in favor of Plaintiff. As an initial matter, the Court is not convinced
that it has subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Even so, after
being provided an opportunity to remedy the issues with her original Complaint,
Plaintiff still has not stated any viable claims against either Defendant. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Therefore, the Court will dismiss this
action. See Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1177 (5th Cir. 2006).
As discussed in the previous  Order, Plaintiff’s allegations in this action
are nearly identical to those in two previously dismissed actions. (See Jackson v.
Obama, et al., No. 1:17cv97-HSO-JCG; Jackson v. Obama, et al., No. 1:16cv379HSO-JCG). Notably, another judge in this district has already cautioned Plaintiff
against filing repetitive, frivolous filings of this sort. (See June 2, 2017 Order, ECF
No. 8, at p.5, Jackson v. Obama, et al., No. 1:17cv97-HSO-JCG). In its  Order,
this Court reminded Plaintiff “that she was recently cautioned that she could be
sanctioned for filing repetitive, frivolous lawsuits, and this Court will not hesitate
to institute sanctions if it finds that Plaintiff has abused process by filing the
present lawsuit.” (See id. at 3). Plaintiff failed to heed this warning, and, thus, the
Court now finds that sanctions against her are appropriate. Specifically, the Court
will order that Plaintiff is barred from filing an pro se complaint in this court
without first obtaining leave of court to do so. See, e.g., Tribbit v. Ward, 81 F.3d
156, 156 (5th Cir. 1996).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Madie Ruth
Jackson may not file any additional pro se complaints without first obtaining leave
of Court to do so. The Clerk of this Court is directed to return to Jackson, unfiled,
any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar. See Tribbit, 81 F.3d at 156.
The Clerk is ORDERED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 17th day of July, 2017.
Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?