Banks v. Song et al

Filing 2

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (The following document(s) were not submitted to the Office of the Clerk: Service copies of the Complaint, Summons, USM-285 forms) filed by Frederick Banks in that it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED and that he be GRANTED THIRTY DAYS to either pay the Court's filing fee or submit the proper documentation. Objections to R&R due by 8/11/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 7/28/17. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

FREDERICK BANKS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:17-cv-628
Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

v.

TWENTY TO FORTY UNKNOWN
NAMED AGENS OF THE FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
PITTSBURGH FIELD OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Frederick Banks, a state inmate proceeding without the assistance of counsel, has
filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) Although Plaintiff’s
application is not accompanied by the required certified trust fund statement from his prison’s
cashier, his Affidavit reflects that that he may have sufficient funds in checking or savings account
to cover the Court’s $400 filing fee. More specifically, his affidavit reflects that he has $700.00 in
his account. The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis be DENIED and that he be GRANTED THIRTY DAYS to either pay the
Court’s filing fee or submit the proper documentation.
Plaintiff is advised that if he opts to proceed with this litigation, which appears to have no
connection to the Southern District of Ohio, his action may be subject to dismissal as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This Court is aware that Plaintiff 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”).
Nevertheless, for the reasons stated, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED (ECF No. 1) and that he be GRANTED THIRTY
DAYS to either pay the Court’s $400.00 filing fee or submit the proper documentation. Plaintiff
is further advised that should the Court adopt this Report and Recommendation, his failure to
timely comply will result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
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. § 636(b)(1).
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

2

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).

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3