Welch et al v. United States et al
Filing
13
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Further, Plaintiffs are hereby forewarned that this Court will not entertain any postjudgment motions in this case. In this connection, given the subs tantial absorption of the Court's resources, human and otherwise, occasioned by this case, the filing of any more patently frivolous lawsuits in this Court by any of these Plaintiffs will result in an order enjoining them from filing cases here without first seeking and obtaining leave of court. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 11/5/12. (LC,S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EDWARD WELCH, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:12 CV 2238
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This in forma pauperis prisoner pro se action was filed by 41 inmates incarcerated in various
correctional institutions in South Carolina.1 The document initiating the case (ECF Doc #1) has the
preprinted word “Complaint” on the front page, but also contains the follow handwritten titles:
“Petition to Remove, Motion to Consolidate, Motion for Protective Order Due to Threat of Imminent
Danger,” “Land Appropriation and International Human Rights Claims,” and “Extra Territorial
Jurisdictions with Public Juris Claims Class Action Attached.” The aforementioned document,
hereafter referred to as “the Complaint,” names 120 defendants, who appear to have been chosen
almost at random. These include, among others, a district judge and former district judge of this
Court (Judge Benita Y. Pearson and Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley), two entire federal circuit courts
1
There are 40 plaintiffs listed in the docket but 41 plaintiff signatures, many
illegible, attached to the 92 page Complaint.
of appeals (the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third Circuit and for the Seventh Circuit),
a well-known island nation (Great Britain), a kingdom (Saudi Arabia), many, many judges and states
of the union, a number of American counties (and departments located within those counties), most
of Western Europe (by country), major financial institutions (e.g., JP Morgan Chase), “192 Member
States of the United Nations,”2 the United States Departments of Justice and Treasury, the Nation
of Islam and Minister Louis Farrakhan, and George Bush, Jr.3
Plaintiff Lawrence L. Crawford, who also identifies himself as “Jonah Gabriel JahJah T.
Tishbite, King, Khalifah, High Priest, Prophet and Imam of the Reestablished Global Theocratic
State”4 (hereafter “Mr. Crawford”), has filed the following two motions since the filing of this case:
Motion and/or Affidavit of Facts Seeking a Protective Order and/or Injunction (ECF Doc # 8) and
Motion for Extension of Time to File Additional Documents (ECF Doc 10). For the reasons stated
below, these and all other pending motions are denied, and this action is dismissed.
COMPLAINT
The Complaint is a 92 page handwritten document containing a series of run-on sentences
which are often incomprehensible.
Jurisdiction is broadly premised upon “extra territorial
jurisdiction in that once the King of the North, Al Mahdi, the Khalifah of Allah, the forerunner to
God’s Christ and Messiah was framed behind religious hatred.” Mr. Crawford, the “lead litigator,”
takes this sort of thematic approach throughout the pleading, bouncing back and forth among various
grievances, including but not limited to: the indictment process in state and federal courts; the
2
South Sudan became the 193rd member in July 2011; there is no indication in the
Complaint if Plaintiffs intended to exempt that nation.
3
Plaintiffs are apparently here referring to the 43rd President of the United States,
George W. Bush.
4
See the instant case, for example, ECF Doc # 1, p.4 and ECF Doc # 2, p.4, and the
Decision and Order in Strozier v. The United States, Northern District of New
York Case No. 9:12 CV 333 (Sept. 4, 2012).
-2-
dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. 2241 action he filed in this Court in 2009; the inapplicability to him of the
“3 strikes” provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915g, despite summary dismissal of a large number of cases
he has filed in district courts throughout the country; and the purported unfair treatment he has
received from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York regarding that
Court’s Case No. 9:12 CV 333 - a case which is, in all material respects, the same as the instant case.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam), the district court is required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if
it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact.5 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010).
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the complaint.” Bell At. Corp. V. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A pleading
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must be
sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required to
include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009). A pleading that
offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this
pleading standard. Id.
5
An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to
the plaintiff and without service of process on the defendant, if the court
explicitly states that it is invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)]
and is dismissing the claim for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. Chase
Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910, 915 (6th Cir. 2007); Gibson v.
R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d
222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986).
-3-
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
As a threshold matter, even construing the Complaint liberally in a light most favorable to
the Plaintiffs, Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2008), it does not contain allegations
reasonably suggesting they might have a valid federal claim. See, Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of
Educ,, 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996)(court not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted
legal conclusions in determining whether complaint states a claim for relief).
Further, there is no basis on which proper venue in this Court might exist. The naming of
sitting and former district judges here whose decisions Mr. Crawford disagrees with, and who are
absolutely immune from liability - see, e.g., Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) - cannot form that
basis. Moreover, as the Complaint is devoid of allegations that might give rise to a valid claim for
relief under the Twombly/Iqbal standard,6 it would obviously not be in the “interest of justice” to
transfer the case to any other court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404,1406.
Finally, to the extent Plaintiffs are seeking to “remove” Strozier v. The United States,
Northern District of New York Case No. 9:12 CV 333, there is no legal basis to do so, and that case
was dismissed on September 4, 2012 in any event.7
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Further, Plaintiffs are hereby
forewarned that this Court will not entertain any postjudgment motions in this case. In this
connection, given the substantial absorption of the Court’s resources, human and otherwise,
occasioned by this case, the filing of any more patently frivolous lawsuits in this Court by any of
these Plaintiffs will result in an order enjoining them from filing cases here without first seeking
6
See also, Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)(complaint is frivolous
when it “rise[s] to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible”).
7
The Strozier Court’s September 4, 2012 Decision and Order notes that the case it
was dismissing was similar to cases filed by Mr. Crawford in federal district
courts in Illinois, California, and New Jersey.
-4-
and obtaining leave of court.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision
could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 11/5/12
-5-
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?