Banks v. Twenty to Forty unknown named agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Pittsburgh Field Office et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff be GRANTED 30 days to either pay the filing fee or submit the proper form. Objections to R&R due by 7/3/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 6/19/2017. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Civil Action 2:17-cv-520
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson
TWENTY TO FORTY UNKNOWN NAMED
AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION PITTSBURGH FIELD
OFFICE, et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Frederick Banks, a pro se prisoner, filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis on June 16, 2017. (Doc. 1). Although Mr. Banks did not file the correct form, which is
an application and affidavit by an incarcerated person to proceed without prepayment of fees, his
application reflects that he may have sufficient cash in a checking or savings account to pay the
Court’s filing fee. Consequently, the Court RECOMMENDS that Mr. Banks’s Motion for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED. The Court further RECOMMENDS that Mr.
Banks be GRANTED thirty days to either pay the Court’s filing fee or submit the proper form.
If he fails to do so, the Court shall recommend dismissal of his complaint.
If Mr. Banks opts to proceed with this litigation, the Court reminds him that his
complaint, which appears to have no connection to the Southern District of Ohio, may be subject
to dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This Court is aware that Mr. Banks has
been declared a vexatious litigant, who “has been warned on multiple occasions that his filing of
meritless, duplicative motions, and initiation of frivolous, duplicative, defective and meritless
lawsuits, will not be tolerated.” Banks v. Pope Francis, No. 15-1385, 2015 WL 8207532, at *3–
4 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2015) (noting that the Court attempted to quantify the number of cases filed
by Mr. Banks but “stopped counting at seventy-five,” although there were “considerably more
filings than that”). Additionally, his admission to filing the “same complaint in several judicial
districts” is troubling. (Doc. 1-1 at 1).
Nevertheless, for the reasons stated, the Court RECOMMENDS that Mr. Banks’s
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED (Doc. 1) and he be GRANTED
thirty days to either pay the Court’s filing fee or submit the proper form. If he fails to do so, the
Court shall recommend dismissal of his complaint.
Procedure on Objections
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s).
A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: June 19, 2017
/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?