Jeep v. Government of the United States of America et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 3 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on November 9, 2017. (BRP)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION DAVID GERARD JEEP, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:17-CV-2690 AGF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s complaint and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to review the complaint and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated by a state family court judge in 2003, when the judge issued an order of protection barring him from contact with his ex-wife and granting his ex-wife custody of their child. In his request for relief, plaintiff seeks to void the order of protection and family court orders. Plaintiff also complains that he was unjustly given a DWI without proper due process in September of 2003 in Camden County, Missouri, and he seeks to have his state criminal conviction overturned. The complaint relates plaintiff’s concerns about the unfairness of the courts and the overreaching of governmental powers. The complaint is substantially similar to several previous cases plaintiff has brought before the Court, all of which were dismissed pre-service. E.g., Jeep v. Government of the United States, 4:13-CV-2490 RWS (E.D. Mo.) (listing previous cases), in addition to, Jeep v. Government of the United States, No. 4:14-CV-2009 DDN (E.D. Mo); Jeep v. Government of the United States, No. 4:15-CV-1533 HEA (E.D. Mo); Jeep v. Government of the United States, No. 4:16-V-0810 CDP (E.D. Mo). This Court lacks jurisdiction over family court matters. 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 a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody.”). As a result, plaintiff’s claims relating to his issues with the outcome of family court matters must be dismissed under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The remainder of plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and malicious. The nature and tone of the allegations against the remaining government defendants demonstrate that plaintiff’s purpose is to harass the named judicial and governmental defendants 1 rather than vindicate a cognizable legal right. Moreover, plaintiff’s request that this Court overturn his prior state court judgments is not feasible. This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction “over challenges to state court decisions. . . in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional. Review of those decisions may be had only in [the United States Supreme Court].” District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983). In light of the aforementioned, this action is dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 3] is GRANTED. 1 Plaintiff sues the Justices of the Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, several judges of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri who have presided over his past cases, President of the United States Barack Obama, members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and several state court Judges. Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of one billion dollars. -2- IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Dated this 9th day of November, 2017. AUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-

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?