Williams v. Pemiscot County Circuit Court et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 42:1983 (prisoner) filed by Plaintiff Troy Williams; motion is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 3/6/14. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
TROY WILLIAMS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
PEMISCOT COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:14CV23 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The motion will be granted. Additionally, having reviewed the case, the Court
will dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint filed in
forma pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. An action is frivolous if it Alacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.@
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31
(1992). An action is malicious if it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named
defendants and not for the purpose of vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes,
656 F. Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D.N.C. 1987), aff=d 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987). A
complaint fails to state a claim if it does not plead Aenough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

The Complaint
Plaintiff is civilly committed at the Northwest Missouri Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Center. He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief from a state
judgment and “one sextillion dollars and 1400 billion” dollars in money damages. The
only named defendants are the Pemiscot County Circuit Court and the Fred Copeland, a
Circuit Court Judge. The complaint is largely unintelligible. Plaintiff rambles something
about telling a judge he was the President of the United States and not getting enough
sleep, but none of his allegations implicate the Constitution or any federal statutes.
Discussion
The complaint is frivolous because it is wholly conclusory and does not allege any
facts, which if proved, would entitle plaintiff to relief.
Furthermore, plaintiff=s complaint is legally frivolous as to Judge Copeland
because he is Aentitled to absolute immunity for all judicial actions that are not >taken in a
complete absence of all jurisdiction.=@ Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir.
2003) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)).
Finally, federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction; they lack subject
matter jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state court decisions. Postma v. First
Fed. Sav. & Loan, 74 F.3d 160, 162 (8th Cir. 1996). AReview of state court decisions
may be had only in the Supreme Court.@

Id.

For these reasons, the complaint is

frivolous, and the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis

-2-

[ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
Dated this 6th day of March, 2014.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-