Williams v. Adams

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's post-dismissal requests to amend his complaint in this action [Doc. #18 and #19] are DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall not be allowed to file any additional correspondence or motions in this closed action.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this action shall not be filed in good faith.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/20/16. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
TROY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RONNIE ADAMS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14CV181 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are various post-dismissal letters from plaintiff Troy Williams, which
the Court will interpret as requests to amend his complaint. See Docket Nos. #18 and #19.
Plaintiff has outlined several different claims and defendants he would like to add to this closed
action. As noted in this Court’s dismissal order, plaintiff’s claims outlined in his original
complaint were largely delusional and failed to state any claims based in fact. Moreover, his
claims dated back to 1984 and were barred by the statute of limitations. See Memorandum and
Order of Dismissal issued on January 23, 2015. Docket Nos. #3 and #4.
The claims outlined in plaintiff’s correspondence are more of the same delusional-based
and time-barred versions of the claims contained in the instant action. An action is factually
frivolous if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless”; allegations are clearly baseless if they are
“fanciful,” “delusional,” or “fantastic.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). The
allegations in the various letters and petitions provided by plaintiff are factually frivolous under
Denton and cannot form the basis for amending the complaint in this action. Moreover, the
majority of the claims alleged by plaintiff are based on the same 1984 allegations that this Court

has already held is time-barred under the current lawsuit. Plaintiff’s request to amend his
complaint will therefore be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s post-dismissal requests to amend his
complaint in this action [Doc. #18 and #19] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall not be allowed to file any additional
correspondence or motions in this closed action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this action shall not be filed in good
faith.
Dated this 20th day of January, 2016.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2