Brown v. McShane et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [Doc. 2] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 4/17/2013. (NCL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
THEODIS BROWN, SR.,
UNKNOWN MCSHANE, et al.,
No. 4:13-CV-558 DDN
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s pro se motion to proceed in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The motion is granted.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to review any case filed in forma pauperis
and to dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. An action is frivolous if it “lacks 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
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Plaintiff purportedly brings this action under the ADA, RICO, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state
law. Defendants are a state judge and a local union. The allegations in the complaint are mostly
illegible, and those that are legible are meritless. Plaintiff refers to his exhibits. They, however, do
not state a claim for relief under any of the causes of action listed above. The exhibits are comprised
of letters from law firms, random emails, newspaper clippings, and other documents.
This lawsuit is frivolous. Defendant McShane is immune from suit. Penn v. United States,
335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003). And there are no factual allegations in the complaint supporting
a claim against the union.
Plaintiff has a long history of filing frivolous civil actions in this Court against government
officials. E.g. Brown v. St. Louis Election Board, 4:08CV1164 CAS (E.D. Mo.). When determining
whether an action is malicious, the Court need not look only to the complaint before it, but may also
look to plaintiff’s prior litigious conduct. Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1316 (4th Cir. 1996).
The Court believes that the frivolous nature of the instant lawsuit, in addition to plaintiff’s history
of filing frivolous anti-government lawsuits, demonstrates that plaintiff has filed this action for the
purpose of harassing the named defendants rather than vindicating a cognizable legal right.
Therefore, this action is malicious, and the Court will dismiss it with prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. [Doc. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 17th day of April, 2013.
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?