Judd v. Obama et al

Filing 2

RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER. Mr. Judd will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 3/18/2013. Mailed to Judd. (TAG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,
Plaintiff,
vs.

RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

BARACK OBAMA, SECRETARY OF
STATE OF MONTANA and the
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF
MONTANA,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Keith Judd, an inmate in the Federal Correction Institution in
Texarkana, Texas proceeding without counsel, filed a one-page document which
he refers to as a "First Amendment Petition for Redress." CD 1. This filing has
been construed as a civil complaint. Mr. Judd seeks to have President Barack
Obama removed from office and replaced by Mr. Judd.
Mr. Judd did not pay the $350.00 filing fee and did not submit an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because this action is subject to
dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Court will not direct Mr. Judd to
pay the fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides:

1

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment
in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has,
on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Since 1993, Mr. Judd has filed over a thousand actions in the United States
federal courts. He has had at least three non-habeas civil complaints or appeals
previously dismissed as frivolous or for failing to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. He has been denied in forma pauperis status in numerous federal
district courts, circuit courts, and the United States Supreme Court. See. e.g .. Judd
v. United States Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 528 U.S. 5, 5 (1999) (finding that
Judd had filed twelve petitions for certiorari which were denied as frivolous and
that "Judd has abused this Court's certiorari and extraordinary writ processes.");
Judd v. Barrack Obama. et al., No. 08-CV-0093-ESH (E.D. Tex Feb 25,
2010)(dismissed as frivolous); Judd v. U.S. District Court, Appeal No. 98-51119
(5th Cir. April 16, 1999)(appeal dismissed as frivolous); Judd v. U.S. District
Court, Appeal No. 98-51155 (5th Cir. April 16, 1999)(appeal dismissed as
frivolous); Judd v. Lappin, No. 04-5337, 2004 WL 3019537 (D.C.Cir. Dec. 30,
2004) (per curium) (unreported)(finding Judd has incurred three strikes); Judd v.
University ofNew Mexico, 204 F.3d 1041, 1044 (10th Cir. 2000) ("Mr. Judd is
2

enjoined from proceeding as an appellant or a petitioner without the representation
of a licensed attorney admitted to practice in this court, unless he first obtains
permission to proceed prose."); Judd v. Furgeson, 239 F.Supp.2d 442, 443 (D.N.J.
2002) (noting the multitude of federal cases Judd has filed that have been
dismissed as frivolous). Other federal courts have threatened to take action
against Judd if he continues to make frivolous filings. See. e.g., Judd v. United
States, No. 05-758, 2005 WL 1532616 (E.D.Mo. June 27, 2005) (threatening
sanctions if Judd makes further frivolous filings).
Mr. Judd falls squarely within tne three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) and he may not proceed in forma pauperis unless he is in "imminent
danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Mr. Judd seeks to
replace Barack Obama as President of the United States. He makes no allegation
of being in imminent danger of serious physical harm.
While the Court ordinarily gives litigants a period of time to pay the full
filing fee of $350.00, it will not do so in this case given Mr. Judd's filing history.
Mr. Judd has a history of abusing the system and filing frivolous lawsuits. Long
before he filed this action, he knew, from his previous filings, that he would not be
permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
Because Mr. Judd is not entitled to a ten-day period to object, this Order
3

will be entered directly upon endorsement. See Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152
F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).
No motion for reconsideration will be entertained.
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that the following
Order be issued by Judge Molloy.
DATED this/

3 day of March, 2013.

K~~~
United States Magistrate Judge

Based upon the above Recommendation by Judge Strong,
IT IS ORDERED THAT Mr. Judd will not be allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of Court is directed close the
case and enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Dated this

~ay of March, 2013.
lloy, District Judge
istrict Court

4