WITHERSPOON v. WITHERSPOON
OPINION re 1 Complaint filed by DESMOND WITHERSPOON. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 10/20/14. (dr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DESMOND M. WITHERSPOON,
Civil Action No. 14-6296 (SRC)
CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the application filed by Plaintiff Desmond
Witherspoon to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915. The Court finds that Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status, yet his Complaint will
nevertheless be dismissed.
The Court must examine the merits of Plaintiff’s claim and dismiss the action if it is
frivolous or legally insufficient. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Here, without providing any
information, Plaintiff claims that he is entitled to “un-paid wages” from Desmond M.
Witherspoon. Plaintiff submitted the same claim against the same Defendant in Civil Action No.
14-5642. The Court dismissed that claim because Plaintiff failed to state a basis for federal
subject matter jurisdiction. This Complaint suffers from the same deficiency. Moreover,
Plaintiff appealed the disposition in that case. The instant Complaint is therefore duplicative,
and it also fails to state a facially plausible claim for relief.
Plaintiff has filed a multitude of one-sentence lawsuits in this Court, without the
repayment of fees. 1 These efforts cumulatively abuse the in forma pauperis procedures set forth
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and together they waste the Court’s resources. The Court advises
Plaintiff that pro se litigants are subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which prohibits
the filing of frivolous or unsubstantiated claims. It further provides that the Court may sanction
parties who violate these restrictions.
An appropriate Order will be filed.
s/Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge
Dated: October 20, 2014
In recent weeks, Plaintiff filed the following lawsuits after applying for and obtaining in forma
pauperis status: 2:14-cv-05455; 2:14-cv-05530; 2:14-cv-05531; 2:14-cv-05561; 2:14-cv-05641;
2:14-cv-05642; 2:14-cv-05643; 2:14-cv-05644; 2:14-cv-05645; 2:14-cv-05646, and 2:14-cv05647. The Court screened each Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and to ascertain
whether subject matter jurisdiction existed. Each Complaint was dismissed. In recent days,
Plaintiff has submitted the following additional Complaints, also accompanied by applications to
file without repayment of fees: 2:14-cv-06094; 2:14-cv-06096; 2:14-cv-06296; 2:14-cv-06297;
2:14-cv-06298; 2:14-cv-06314. All but two of these new submissions merely restate claims
against the same defendants as the previously dismissed suits.
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?