Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents et al (DO NOT ACCEPT FURTHER FILINGS PER ORDER #5)

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding Complaint 1 filed by Young Yil Jo. 1. This matter is dismissed with prejudice because it is frivolous and malicious. 2. The clerk's office is directed to accept no further filings from Plaintiff in this matter except for a notice of appeal. 3. Any future case proposed to be filed in this court by Plaintiff shall be referred to the Supervising Pro Se Judge for review before filing. 4. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. 5. Plaintiff is WARNED the continued submission of frivolous pleadings and lawsuits in this district will result in the imposition of monetary sanctions. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
YOUNG YIL JO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, )
and BARACK OBAMA, Mr.
)
President Of The United States,
)
)
Defendants.
)

8:13CV219

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff Young Yil Jo filed a document titled, “Under 42
USC 1983 a Civil Rights Action” against “Six Unknown Names Agents or Mr.
President of the United States Barack Obama.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.)
Plaintiff is a prisoner in federal custody at the United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Processing Center in El Paso, Texas.
Plaintiff is an experienced pro se litigant with an extensive history of abusive
filings in multiple federal district courts. The court has reviewed the United States
Case/Party Index and notes that, to date, Plaintiff has filed over 400 federal civil
lawsuits in 34 federal district courts. He has been barred from proceeding IFP by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) because he has three or more strikes, a fact he has been informed
of numerous times. See, e.g., Joe v. Bush, No. 1:2004-cv-3830 (N.D. Ill. June 14,
2004); Joe v. Bush, No. 1:2004-cv-8065 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2005); Bustamante v. Six
Unknown Names Agents, No. 1:09-cv-7154 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2009); and GutierrezArias v. Six Unknown Agents, et al., No. 3:10-cv-105 (N.D. Ind. April 23, 2010).
Moreover, Plaintiff has been barred from filing any further lawsuits in the
Western District of Texas (see Zapata-Lara v. Six Unknown Names Agents, No. 1:10cv-88 (W.D. Tex. March 19, 2010)), the Northern District of Illinois (see In re Young

Yil Jo, 1:10-cv-390 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2010)), the Northern District of Indiana
(see Gutierrez-Arias v. Six Unknown Names Agents, 3:10-cv-105 (N.D. Ind. April 23,
2010)), and the Northern District of Texas (see Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents, No.
1:10-cv-131 (N.D. Tex. June 24, 2010)). In addition, both the Western and Northern
Districts of Texas have imposed monetary sanctions against Plaintiff due to his abuse
of the court’s resources. See Montoya v. Six Unknown Names Agents, No. 4:10-cv-27
(W.D. Tex. April 27, 2010); Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents, No. 3:13-cv-2432
(N.D. Tex. July 3, 2013).
It appears Plaintiff has now turned his attention to this district. In less than one
year’s time, Plaintiff has filed 10 similar rambling, incoherent, and baseless cases in
his own name and in the names of others. See Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents, No.
8:12-cv-333 (D. Neb. Sept. 10, 2012); Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents, No. 8:12-cv415 (D. Neb. Dec. 3, 2012); Jo v. Obama, No. 8:12-cv-442 (D. Neb. Dec. 26, 2012);
Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents, No. 8:13-cv-30 (D. Neb. Jan. 22, 2013); Jo v. Six
Unknown Names Agents, No. 8:13-cv-36 (D. Neb. Jan. 25, 2013); Jo v. Six Unknown
Names Agents, No. 8:13-cv-48 (D. Neb. Feb. 11, 2013); Lopez v. Six Unknown Names
Agents, No. 8:13-cv-176 (D. Neb. May 31, 2013); Lopez v. Six Unknown Names
Agents, No. 8:13-cv-207 (D. Neb. June 24, 2013); Cho v. Six Unknown Names
Agents, No. 8:13-cv-209 (D. Neb. July 5, 2013) and Jo v. Six Unknown Names
Agents, No. 8:13-cv-219 (D. Neb. July 22, 2013).
Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee in any of these cases and, as set forth above,
he is barred from proceeding IFP because he has three or more strikes under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s conduct is a drain on the court’s
judicial resources. With this in mind, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed with
prejudice because Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and his complaint is frivolous
and malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (the court must dismiss a complaint or any
portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
2

is immune from such relief). In addition, to prevent further abuse of this court’s
resources, Plaintiff will no longer be permitted to file a complaint without paying the
filing fee without first seeking leave to do so. If plaintiff proposes to file a complaint
without paying the filing fee (i.e., it appears he intends to proceed IFP), but the
complaint does not show on its face that Plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury, the court will direct the clerk’s office to return the proposed
complaint to Plaintiff without filing it, as set forth below. See id. (“In no event shall
a prisoner bring a civil action . . . 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.”). In addition, the
clerk’s office will be directed to accept no further filings from Plaintiff in this matter
except for a notice of appeal. See also In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 185 n. 8
(1989) (“Federal courts have both the inherent power and constitutional obligation
to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out
Article III functions.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
This matter is dismissed with prejudice because it is frivolous and
malicious.
2.
The clerk’s office is directed to accept no further filings from Plaintiff
in this matter except for a notice of appeal. If Plaintiff seeks to appeal this dismissal,
his notice of appeal must be accompanied by an appellate filing fee in the amount of
$455.00. Plaintiff will not be permitted to appeal in forma pauperis.
3.
Any future case proposed to be filed in this court by Plaintiff shall be
referred to the Supervising Pro Se Judge for review before filing. The Supervising
3

Pro se Judge will review any such tendered complaint, and if it fails to comply with
this Memorandum and Order and applicable law, it will be returned to Plaintiff
without filing. A record of any such submission and return will be maintained in the
CM/ECF system under the “PS” designation or as otherwise directed by the
Supervising Pro Se Judge.
4.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
5.

Plaintiff is WARNED the continued submission of frivolous

pleadings and lawsuits in this district will result in the imposition of monetary
sanctions.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third
parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for
the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
4