Cornforth v. Clark et al

Filing 12

ORDER dismissing plaintiff's complaint and this case; leave to amend is denied. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 1/24/2018. (cla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RICHARD CORNFORTH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TRACI CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-17-888-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Richard Cornforth’s complaint purports to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. The complaint is lengthy and confusing, but appears to assert violations of plaintiff’s
constitutional rights arising out divorce proceedings with his former common law wife,
domestic violence allegations and victim protection orders issued by a Florida court, arrest
warrants and home searches in Oklahoma, an alleged attempt to murder the plaintiff, and
a variety of other circumstances. He asserts a conspiracy between his former wife, her
lawyers, plaintiff’s former lawyers, judges in Florida, several Oklahoma state judges in
Oklahoma and Logan Counties, police officers in Florida and Oklahoma, the district
attorney of Oklahoma County, two U. S. District Judges, and various others. The complaint
states no facts supporting the existence of such a conspiracy, but does allege that all the
conspirators “either walk in fear of or live to serve an unseen power, a regal power, a power
above law holding illicit authority to secretly arbitrate all claims in all venues . . . .”
The complaint is frivolous on its face and will be dismissed sua sponte. Even where
a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, district courts have inherent authority to
dismiss a complaint as frivolous and malicious. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Ct., 490

U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (“there is little doubt” that courts have the power to dismiss a
frivolous or malicious action even in the absence of [42 U.S.C. § 1915(d)]); see also
Williams v. Madden, 9 F. App’x 996, 997 n.1 (10th Cir. 2001). This case meets that
standard.
Plaintiff’s complaint and this case are DISMISSED. Leave to amend is denied. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of January, 2018.

1

Plaintiff has filed other similar complaints in this court over the years which have been
promptly dismissed. See e.g. Order, Cornforth v. State of Oklahoma, CIV-17-1297-D (W.D. Okla.
Dec. 8, 2017), ECF 50. Another judge of this court has imposed filing restrictions as to any claims
against the defendant in that case. See Order, Cornforth v. Fidelity Invs., CIV-16-173-R (W.D.
Okla. May 1, 2017), ECF 58.

2