Jeep v. Government of the United States of America
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis Doc. # 2 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint because the Court la cks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and the complaint is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court will dismiss this action, without prejudice. An appropriate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/14/14. (ARL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DAVID G. JEEP,
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
No. 4:13CV2490 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se
complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint upon a
determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §
Plaintiff, a resident of St. Louis, Missouri, brings this action alleging
violations of his civil rights. He sues several categories of high-level government
officials, including the President of the United States, Justices of the Supreme
Court, judges on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and this Court, several state
court judges, attorneys general, the State of Missouri and Governor Jay Nixon,
several county governments and various others.
Plaintiff states that his allegations arise from a series of incidents which
began in 2003 after an order of protection was issued against plaintiff by his wife.
Plaintiff complains that the order of protection and subsequent divorce and
custody proceedings, violated his civil rights, and that he was unlawfully unable to
seek monetary or injunctive relief against the governmental officials who
instituted and enforced the judgments. Plaintiff also claims he was denied his civil
rights in appeals and collateral attacks on state court DWI proceedings.
In his request for relief, plaintiff seeks monetary relief in the amount of
$229 million dollars. Plaintiff also requests that the Court expunge his DWI
conviction and overturn all orders of protection, custody and divorce orders issued
Plaintiff is a frequent litigant before this Court and other courts, and his
claims are duplicative of prior cases brought before this Court. See, e.g., Jeep v.
Jones, et al., No. 4:07CV1116 CEJ (June 19, 2007); Jeep v. Obama, 4:11CV931
CAS (June 8, 2011); Jeep v. Obama, 4:11CV703 CEJ (April 27, 2012); and Jeep v.
Gov’t of the U.S., 4:13CV360 ERW (April 15, 2013). As this Court has noted
previously, because his complaints center around state law matters such as
marriage dissolution and child custody, the Court lacks jurisdiction to intervene in
his prior cases. See Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) (“The
domestic relations exception...divests the federal courts of jurisdiction over any
action for which the subject is divorce, allowance of alimony or child custody.”);
see also, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
The Court further concludes that despite plaintiff’s assertions to the
contrary, his claims against the various governmental officials involved in entering
and enforcing the state court judgments against him relating to some perceived
violation of his civil rights, are without merit, as these officials are entitled to
absolute immunity for all actions that are not taken in a complete absence of
jurisdiction. Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003). To state it
another way, plaintiff is not entitled to sue governmental officials for purported
violations of his civil rights simply because he disagrees with the outcome of the
proceedings initiated against him. Moreover, any assertions by plaintiff that the
numerous governmental officials named in this complaint have somehow engaged
in a conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights describes a fantastic or delusional
scenario that is also subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also, Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
In light of the aforementioned, this action will be dismissed, without
prejudice, as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915e(2)(B), and for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or
cause process to issue upon the complaint because the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action and the complaint is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court will dismiss this action, without prejudice.
An appropriate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Dated this 14th day of January, 2014.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
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?