Johnson et al v. United States et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order. Dated this 10th day of December, 2012. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 12/10/12. (JWJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JOSEPH JOHNSON, et al.,
UNITED STATES, et al.,
No. 4:12CV2155 AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and submission of a civil complaint. Based on the financial affidavit submitted with
the motion, the Court has determined that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee, and the
Court will allow Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court is required to review any complaint filed in forma pauperis and to dismiss it if it is
frivolous, malicious, or if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In the complaint, Plaintiff sues several judges of this Court, the President of the
United States, several Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, several officials
of the United States, and several state officials. Plaintiff alleges that there is a “spying
program executed by the United States Government [which] was an investigative check
against the Plaintiff for contesting redress in the Probate Court under Estate of P.D.
Johnson # 3-87-0974-P-D.” Plaintiff believes that this spying program involves the FBI,
NSA, the judges of this Court, as well as several other federal and state agencies, the
purposes for which appear to be to retaliate against Plaintiff and his family for taking action
in state court in the 1980s.
The complaint is incoherent and the allegations are wholly delusional. The Supreme
Court of the United States instructed in Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992), that
factual allegations that are “fanciful,” “delusional,” or “fantastic” should be dismissed under
Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff has brought several actions against the judges
of this Court. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has attempted to disqualify each of the
judges of this Court from hearing his cases by adding each of them to his complaints after
they have dismissed his frivolous actions. Finally, the Court notes that he will not be able
to disqualify all of the judges on this Court from hearing his cases because the rule of
necessity prevents him from doing so. E.g. Tapia-Ortiz v. Winter, 185 F.3d 8, 10 (2nd Cir.
1999) (under the “rule of necessity,” where a judge would normally be disqualified to decide
a case because she is a party to it, she may hear it because it could not be heard otherwise);
Andersen v. Roszkowski, 681 F. Supp. 1284, 1289 (N.D. Ill.1988) ( “The Court will not
allow Plaintiffs to impede the administration of justice by suing every district court judge [in
this district] until their case is transferred out of the Seventh Circuit.”), aff'd, 894 F.2d 1338
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 10th day of December, 2012.
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES 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?