Triplett, PC v. United States

Filing 20

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS. The Clerk is directed to accept no additional filings in this case other than a Notice of Appeal. The Clerk is further directed to return all filings in this case, other than the Complaint and Amended Complaint, to Plaintiff. Signed on 8/29/16 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) Certified copy of ORDER presented to Plaintiff at the intake counter on 8/29/2016 (Martin, Jan).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
ROY TRIPLETT, P.C.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16-CV-861-ODS

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
On August 4, 2016, Plaintiff Roy Triplett, P.C. paid his filing fee and filed a
complaint. Doc. #2. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff amended his complaint. Doc. #8.
Although this matter has been pending for a matter of weeks, Plaintiff has filed nine
pleadings entitled “Brief.” Docs. #3-7, 9-12. As set forth herein, Plaintiff’s claims are
dismissed.

I. HISTORY WITH PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff has been a frequent pro se filer of unsuccessful actions in this Court.
See Triplett v. Obama, Case No. 15-CV-520-BCW (W.D. Mo. Nov. 20, 2015) (Doc. #12)
(denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and noting “Plaintiff’s
claims are unintelligible and fail to adequately state any claim upon which relief can be
granted.”); Triplett v. United States Postal Serv., Case No. 14-CV-63-HFS (W.D. Mo.
Feb. 3, 2014) (Doc. #8) (denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, stating “plaintiff’s allegations are unintelligible and fail to adequately state any
claim upon which relief may be granted.”); Triplett v. Office of United States Dep’t of
State, Case No. 13-CV-912-DW (W.D. Mo. Nov. 21, 2013) (Doc. #62) (dismissing sua
sponte Plaintiff’s lawsuit, stating that Plaintiff’s allegations were “unclear, intelligible” and
he failed to state any claim upon which relief may be granted); Roy Triplett PC v. United
States Postal Serv., Case No. 13-CV-463 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 26, 2013) (Doc. #83)
(dismissing lawsuit for failure to effectuate service and failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted); Triplett v. Rockhurst Univ., Case No. 01-CV-395-ODS

(W.D. Mo. Apr. 16, 2011) (Doc. #4) (denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis); Triplett v. Lindsey, Case No. 00-CV-1129-GAF (W.D. Mo. June 26,
2001) (Doc. #18) (dismissing matter for failure to obtain service upon defendants);
Triplett v. Univ. of Missouri-Kansas City, Case No. 00-CV-1127-FJG (W.D. Mo. Mar. 28,
2002) (Doc. #49) (dismissing lawsuit for failure to state a claim and for insufficiency of
service of process). Many Judges noted Plaintiff’s frequent, unsuccessful attempts to
bring claims in this Court.
Plaintiff’s claims have faced a similar fate in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas. In 2014, the District of Kansas dismissed Plaintiff’s lawsuit
against an “SSA Clerk” and several others. Triplett v. Jeaneas, Case No. 14-CV-2054CM-JPO (D. Kan. Mar. 10, 2014). Judge Murguia found Plaintiff “failed to set forth any
facts giving rise to his purported cause(s) of action” and it was not “apparent from the
complaint (or his subsequent amended complaint) just what his causes of action” were.
Id., Doc. #44, at 3. Judge Murguia noted Plaintiff “fail[ed] to include any allegation
about [the named] defendants” or the alleged conduct in which any of the defendants
engaged Id., at 4. The Court found Plaintiff’s factual allegations were insufficient to
support his claim, “whatever those may be.” Id., at 4.
But Judge Murguia’s recent decision is not the only time Plaintiff unsuccessfully
attempted to bring claims in the District of Kansas. In 2005 and 2011, Plaintiff’s claims
were dismissed as unintelligible, and the dismissals were upheld on appeal. Triplett v.
Triplett, Case No. 04-CV-2223-CM-JPO, 2005 WL 2122802, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 8,
2008) (dismissing Plaintiff’s claims because the court could not “divine a viable claim
from plaintiff’s complaint” and his “pleadings consist[ed] of little more than unintelligible
ramblings.”), aff’d, 166 F. App’x 338, 340 (10th Cir. 2006); Triplett v. U.S. Dep’t of Def.,
Case No. 11-CV-2105-SAC (D. Kan. Apr. 20, 2011) (Doc. #15) (dismissing Plaintiff’s
claims for failure to state a claim), aff’d, 441 F. App’x 618, 619 (10th Cir. 2011) (finding it
was “plainly evident that the district court did not err by dismissing Mr. Triplett’s
complaint for failure to state a claim”). Plaintiff’s numerous and unintelligible filings are
nothing new to this Court or the District of Kansas.

2

II. STANDARD
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint contain “a
short and plain statement” of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, claim showing the
plaintiff is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)(3). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). To
state a claim for relief, a claim must be plausible on its face. “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure allows for the dismissal of lawsuits that fail to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). While a pro se complaint should be given
liberal construction, the essence of an allegation must be discernible and the complaint
should state a claim as a matter of law. See Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th
Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); Guy v. Swift & Co., 612 F.2d 383, 385 (8th Cir. 1980)
(citation omitted).
“Without question, a district court has the power to dismiss a complaint sua
sponte, but only where plaintiff cannot possibly prevail and amendment would be futile.”
Bucklew v. Lombardi, 783 F.3d 1120, 1127 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). The
dismissal does not require prior notice under Rule 12(b)(6) “when it is patently obvious
the plaintiff could not prevail based on the facts alleged in the complaint.” Murphy v.
Lancaster, 960 F.2d 746, 748 (8th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted); see also Porter v. Fox,
99 F.3d 271, 273-74 (8th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted) (finding a district court may
dismiss a case sua sponte prior to service of process if the complaint is frivolous).

III. DISCUSSION
From what the Court can discern, Plaintiff appears to bring claims against 91
Defendants arising from events that occurred in 1986. Doc. #8.1 These Defendants
include but are certainly not limited to the United States; federal agencies; state
departments and employees thereof; correctional facilities and employees thereof;
1

Dates in October 1986 are referenced fourteen times in Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint. Doc. #8, at 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 25, 31, 36, 72, 73, 78, 86, 94, 95.
3

police departments, commissioners, and officers, medical professionals; and medical
facilities and employees thereof.
Plaintiff failed to set forth any factual allegations regarding nearly half of the
defendants he identified. There are no factual allegations pertaining to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, Loretta Lynch, Chris Koster, Eric Lowe, Susan Suddeth, John
Hickey, Lane Robert, Darryl Forte, Missouri Division of Professional Registration,
Jefferson City Correctional Center, Jefferson City Correctional Center for Women, Dr.
Gary Lipinski, James Whitman, James Williams, Samuel Davis, Jonathon Williams,
Herbert Johnson, Thelma Williams, Michael Pazzinni, Craig Brady, James Williams,
Trent Williams, Trent Dilfer, Dr. Karen Sarenka, Dr. Joshua Broghammer, Urology
Clinic, Research Medical Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Joliet
Correctional Center, Attica Correctional Facility, Sing Sing Prison, Menard Corrections
Center, Missouri Department of Corrections, St. Louis Police Department, Shreveport
Police Department, and Federal Correctional Institution – Terminal Island. Doc. #8.
These people and entities are listed in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, but Plaintiff failed
to set forth any factual allegations supporting claims against any of these people or
entities. Doc. #8. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amend Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8,
and fails to state a claim against, at a minimum, those Defendants he simply named.
Additionally, much of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is unintelligible.2 Many of
sentences go on for pages and are incoherent and incomprehensible. By way of
example, one sentence reads as follows:
The Plaintiff must require for the admissibility of genetic DNA fingerprints
of attackers, and the evidence of all illegal use of medical treatments of
the Hematology Gas Thermolopoly Procedures, Electronic Bone Graph
Exam, Cranial-3 Syringe Injections of A.I.D.S. (Acquired Immune
Defencienty [sic] Syndrome), Factory into human brain, Inhalation Tube
Resister, Graham Electrics Rhino Binert, Keaopackte [sic] Shards of Nails
illegally inserted through anal cavity, the lacerated scars of abdominal wall
unto the induced state of hiatal hernia, Angular Tourniquet Release
Procedure for the result of broken Interior Cruciate Ligament, Anterior
Cruciate Ligament, the broken jaw bone unto fracture strikes of a heavy
metal pipe, and the Osgood Schlatter Disease of the right knee, illegal
2

Both Judge Wimes and Judge Sachs made similar determinations. Triplett v. Obama,
Case No. 15-CV-520-BCW (Doc. #12);Triplett v. United States Postal Serv., Case No.
14-CV-63-HFS (Doc. #8).
4

reduction of height from 7’6.08” unto 5’6.3”, and the crime victim of
attempted murder during the anesthetic sleep of the agreed unto rectal
colonoscopy lift surgeries of October 19, 1986.
Doc. #8, 35-36.3 Another example states the following:
Thus, the Plaintiff may claim a duration of punitive damages, for the
premeditated states of all illegal times of elongated surgery that have been
an overlap of purposeful states of basic culpability standards, to be
confirmed unto the Federal Sentencing Guidelines of Health Care Fraud,
and the evidence of medical malpractice. Finally, the Plaintiff has claimed
all injuries for the long-term reporting of the "Line of Duty Compensation
Act" of RSMO's 287.243.1.Line of duty compensation--definitions--claims
procedure-no subrogation rights for employers or insurers--grievance
procedures--sunset date--fund created; use of moneys, and the effect of
all clinical evaluations of a permanent or total disability reporting of
RSMO's 287.200.Permanent total disability, amount to be paid-suspension of payments, when--toxic exposure, treatment of claims,
RSMO's 287.195.Claims for hernia, proof required, RSMO's 487.090.
Doc. #8, at 41-42. These are only two examples stemming from Plaintiff’s 273-page
Amended Complaint. The Court, after careful review of the Amended Complaint, is
unable to discern what claims Plaintiff is asserting and which Defendants are liable for
said claims.
Plaintiff utilizes words and phrases such as “workers’ compensation,”
“subrogation,” “negligence,” “criminal negligence,” “aiding and abetting of the reckless
abandonment,” “premeditated states of malice-afterthought,” “armed criminal actions,”
“conspiracy,” “attempted murder,” “civil rights violations,” “false imprisonment,” “illegal
prostitution,” “aggravated criminal assault,” “blatant terrorism,” “offensive contact
battery,” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress” in his Amended Complaint. But
simply setting forth legal conclusions, or in this case, legal terms, does not state a
plausible claim for relief. Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir.
2009) (finding “legal conclusions or formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action” may be set aside) (citation and internal quotation omitted).
While Plaintiff mentions “medical malpractice” in his Amended Complaint, that
phrase is utilized in conjunction with events that occurred in October 1986. For
example, Plaintiff states the following:
3

All excerpts from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are taken exactly from that document.
5

However, the conditions of medical malpractice are now represented, on
the grounds of the effects of all announced disfigurements of a
depolarization of the large intestine, from the anatomical structures of the
corpus carnavesum, corpus spongilisium, and the head of the mail penis,
such as the anatomical dysfunction may be stated for “intussusception”,
“volvulus”, “Loop of Burnace”, and “compacted hiatal hernia”, for the basis
of all illegally performed medical procedures that have been announced
unto the definition of a “compacted hiatal hernia”.
Doc. #8, at 18-19. In Missouri, there is a two-year state of limitations for medical
malpractice claims. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.105 (stating medical claims, with limited
exceptions, “shall be brought within two years from the date of occurrence of the act of
neglect complained”). Plaintiff, however, has not alleged how he can bring a plausible
claim for medical malpractice nearly thirty years after the alleged negligence occurred.
And he has not alleged facts connecting all Defendants to the alleged medical
malpractice.
The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and further finds that Plaintiff has failed to set forth plausible claims
against Defendants. It is patently obvious to this Court that Plaintiff could not prevail
based upon the facts he alleged in the Amended Complaint. It is evident from Plaintiff’s
history as a frequent filer in this Court and in the District of Kansas that he is unable to
craft a complaint that complies with Rule 8. For that reason, the Court declines to
entertain a motion of reconsideration or any similar motion that asked the Court to
change its position in this case. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to accept no
additional filings in this case other than a Notice of Appeal. The Clerk is further directed
to return all filings in this case, other than the Complaint and Amended Complaint, to
Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATE: August 29, 2016

6