Boyd v. Crowe
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 4/24/13. (ARL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WILLIE E. BOYD,
JIM CROWE, JR.,
No. 4:13CV527 JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s complaint for subject
matter jurisdiction and under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must dismiss a complaint at any time if it appears
that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is
required to dismiss a complaint filed by a prisoner if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff purports to bring this action under Local Rule 12.02 for attorney
discipline against Assistant United States Attorney Jim Crowe, Jr. Plaintiff alleges
that fraud occurred in his 1997 criminal action, United States v. Boyd, 4:97CR301
ERW (E.D. Mo.). Plaintiff has filed numerous post-judgment motions in that case
alleging the same fraud, all of which were denied by the Court with prejudice.
Local Rule 12.02 does not provide for a federal cause of action. Moreover,
there is no mechanism allowing for a prisoner to institute disciplinary proceedings in
this Court. Plaintiff has not invoked the Constitution or any federal statute, and the
Court cannot envision any non-frivolous amendment to the complaint that would
bring it within this Court’s purview. As a result, the Court finds that subject matter
jurisdiction is lacking.
Even if this Court were to have jurisdiction over the complaint, the Court would
dismiss this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A court may determine that an action
or allegation is “malicious” under § 1915A by referring to objective factors such as
the circumstances and history surrounding the filing, the tone of the allegations, and
whether probative facts vital to the life of the lawsuit have been alleged. Spencer v.
Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 463 (E.D.N.C. 1987), aff’d 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987).
An action is malicious when it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing litigants and
not for the purpose of vindicating a cognizable right. Id. at 461-63. In this instance,
it is clear from the allegations and plaintiff’s post-judgment filings in the criminal
action that plaintiff has filed this action for the sole purpose of harassing the named
defendant and the government. Consequently, the Court will dismiss this action with
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 24th day of April, 2013.
JOHN A. ROSS
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?