Reid v. Mabus et al
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/18/15 denying plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and finding that, for the reasons set forth in this entry, the complaint should be dismissed. If the plaintiff wishe s to proceed, he must pay the full filing fee of $400.00 within 30 days of the date of this entry and file a motion to re-open the case. Said motion will not be accepted if it is not accompanied by the full filing fee, and no other documents will be accepted for filing until the motion to re-open has been granted. (Related Docs. 1 and 2 ) (W,M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
JESSE REID, JR.,
: CASE NO. 1:15-CV-01680
: OPINION & ORDER
: [Resolving Docs. No.1 and 2]
RAY MABUS, et al.,
------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pro se Plaintiff Jesse Wayne Reid, Jr. filed this mandamus action against the Secretary
of the Navy Ray Mabus, his “Confidential Assistant” Sam Erhart, and 19 other Defendants,
including federal officials and agencies. He alleges the Defendants violated duties to him under
the “bad men” provision of the Treaty of Fort Laramie because they did not investigate his
claims that the Navy Sea Systems Command in Washington, D.C. was sending wireless signals
via “synthetic technology” to harass him because he filed lawsuits against the federal
government. He seeks mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, ordering the Defendants
to investigate his claims and cease and desist “all harassing communications with [him].” He
also seeks $10 million in monetary damages for violations of his constitutional rights under the
First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). For the
reasons stated below, the Application is denied and this action is dismissed.
Jesse Reid, Jr claims the Navy Sea Systems Command is sending wireless, harassing
communications to him using “synthetic technology” to retaliate against him for filing lawsuits
against the federal government. This is the twelfth identical case filed by Plaintiff Jesse Reid,
Jr. Two other cases were filed in the Northern District of Ohio1, two were filed in the Southern
District of Ohio2, and the remaining cases were filed in the District of Nebraska, the District of
Montana, the District of Alaska, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of Arizona,
the District of Oregon, and the District of Oklahoma.3 All of the Petitions were filed on August
17, 18, or 20, 2015. Furthermore, since this case was filed, Reid filed two more identical
mandamus petitions in the Northern District of Ohio, bringing the total number of cases to
fourteen. Reid contends he is preparing 60,000 of these petitions for filing, because the CIA is
under the impression they can harass him and he is intent on demonstrating “he can do
something about it.”
II. In Forma Pauperis Application
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this Court may authorize the filing of a lawsuit without
prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit listing assets and expenses and
See Reid v. Mabus, No 4:15 CV 1649 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2015)(Lioi, J.); Reid v. Mabus,
No 5:15 CV 1639 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2015)(Adams, J.).
Reid v. Mabus, No 2:15 CV 2732 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 24, 2015)(Black, J.); Reid v. Mabus, No
1:15 CV 538 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 24, 2015)(Black, J.).
Reid v. Mabus, No 4:15 CV 3104 (D. Neb. filed Aug. 18, 2015)(Gerrard, J.); Reid v. Mabus,
No 1:15 CV 0077 (D. Mont. field Aug. 18, 2015)(Watters, J.); Reid v. Mabus, No 3:15 CV 0143
(D. Alaska Aug. 17, 2015)(Burgess, J.); Reid v. Mabus, No. 2:15 CV 4707 (E.D. PA. Aug. 20,
2015)(Kearney, J.); Reid v. Mabus, No 2:15 CV 1588 (D. Ariz. filed Aug. 17, 2015)(Campbell, J.);
Reid v. Mabus, No 6:15 CV 1556 (D. Oregon filed Aug. 17, 2015)(Coffin, J.); Reid v. Mabus, No
6:15 CV 310 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 27, 2015)(White, J.).
demonstrating that he or she is unable to pay the fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “[P]auper status
does not require absolute destitution.”4 Rather, “the question is whether the court costs can be
paid without undue hardship.”5 It is within the Court’s discretion to allow or deny pauper status
to a litigant.6
In this instance, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he cannot pay court costs without undue
hardship. Reid filed the old version of the In Forma Pauperis Application, and did not attempt
to complete the form. He filled in zeros when asked to supply his gross and take-home wages,
and left the rest of the form blank. The Clerk’s Office sent the updated In Forma Pauperis
Application to Reid seeking information about his assets, income and expenses but he did not
complete and return it. Because Reid did not take the opportunity to correct the deficiency, the
Court has no basis upon which to grant his Application.
Furthermore, Congress first enacted an In Forma Pauperis statute in 1892 “to ensure
that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.”7 Proceeding In Forma
Pauperis is a privilege, and not a right.8 Federal courts may revoke or deny the privilege of
proceeding as a pauper when a litigant abuses the privilege by repeatedly filing frivolous,
Foster v. Cuyahoga Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 21 Fed. Appx. 239, 240 (6th Cir.
2001) (citing Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc, 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2nd Cir.
Foster, 21 Fed. Appx. at 240.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324, (1989) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont deNemours &
Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342-43 (1948)).
Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603 (6th Cir. 1998); Weaver v. Toombs, 948 F.2d 1004,
1008 (6th Cir. 1991); Marshall v. Beshear, No. 3:10CV-663-R, 2010 WL 5092713, at *3 (W.D. Ky.
Dec. 7, 2010).
harassing, or duplicative lawsuits.9
Reid’s repetitive filings of the same petition in this Court and District Courts around the
country suggest he is not attempting to gain real relief from the Defendants. He filed twelve of
the cases within days of each other. Instead, it appears he is using In Forma Pauperis
applications to enable him to submit multiple identical petitions without paying the filing fees to
harass the Defendants. This is not an acceptable use of In Forma Pauperis status.
Accordingly, Reid’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied
and this action is dismissed. 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. If Reid wishes to proceed with the
action, he must pay the full filing fee of $400.00 within thirty days, and must file a Motion to
Re–Open Case. The Motion will not be accepted if it is not accompanied by the full filing fee.
No other documents will be accepted for filing in this case unless the entire filing fee is paid,
and a Motion to Re–Open has been granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2015
s/ James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184-85 (1989) (per curiam); Maxberry v. S.E.C., 879
F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir.1989) (per curiam); Levy v. Macy's, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-148, 2014 WL 49188,
at *4 -5 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2014); Hopson v. Secret Service, No. 3:12CV-770-H, 2013 WL
1092915, at *1-3 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2013); Marshall v. Beshear, No. 3:10CV-663-R, 2010 WL
5092713, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 7, 2010); Haddad v. Michigan Nat. Bank, No. 1:09-cv-1023, 2010
WL 2384535, at *2-3 (W.D. Mich. June 10, 2010).
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?