Judd v. Secretary of State of South Dakota et al

Filing 7

ORDER Dismissing Case. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 7/18/2011. (KC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SECRETARY OF STATE OF
SOUTH DAKOTA; and
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. 11-4080-KES

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND
DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff, Keith Russell Judd, moves to proceed in forma pauperis in
his lawsuit against defendants. Judd is a federal prisoner incarcerated in
Texarkana, Texas. Judd filed a complaint seeking to be placed on the ballot
as a candidate for President of the United States in the 2012 South Dakota
Democratic Presidential Primary Election. In his complaint, Judd also asks
that any South Dakota laws that would prevent his candidacy be declared
unconstitutional and that voting rights be restored to all convicted felons,
including those currently incarcerated for their crimes. Finally, Judd seeks
a preliminary injunction placing him on the ballot for the 2012 Democratic
Presidential Primary Election and compelling defendants to register all
convicted felons to vote in the 2012 Presidential Election.

Judd has not filed a certified copy of his prisoner trust account with
this court, as is required for motions to proceed in forma pauperis under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The PLRA also provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court
of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C.§ 1915(g) (emphasis added). Because Judd has had at least three
civil complaints or appeals previously dismissed as frivolous or for failing to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, he is required to show that
he is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury” before he may proceed
in forma pauperis. Because Judd does not make this allegation, the court
finds there is no need to wait for receipt of a certified trust account
statement.
Judd has a lengthy history of frivolous and abusive filings reaching
even the United States Supreme Court. See, e.g., Judd v. United States Dist.
Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 528 U.S. 5 (1999) (per curiam) (finding that Judd had
filed twelve petitions for certiorari that were denied as frivolous and that he
had “abused this Court’s certiorari and extraordinary writ processes”); Judd
v. Lappin, No. 04-5337, 2004 WL 3019537 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2004) (per
curiam) (finding Judd had incurred three strikes); Judd v. University of New

2

Mexico, 204 F.3d 1041, 1044 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Mr. Judd is enjoined from
proceeding as an appellant or a petitioner without the representation of a
licensed attorney admitted to practice in this court, unless he first obtains
permission to proceed pro se.”); Judd v. Furgeson, 239 F. Supp. 2d 442, 443
(D.N.J. 2002) (“In this instance, the “three strikes” rule is applied against a
plaintiff who has filed over 200 civil actions in the federal courts nationwide,
many of which have been dismissed as frivolous[.]”) Moreover, an
examination of court records shows that Judd has filed lawsuits identical to
this one in nearly every district court in the United States. See, e.g., Judd v.
Secretary of State of Montana and the State of Montana, No. 11-0008, Docket
4, Recommendation and Order (denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismissing suit); Judd v. Secretary of State of Arkansas and State of
Arkansas, No. 11-4049, Docket 10, Report and Recommendation
(recommending that leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that
case be dismissed, observing that Judd’s “actual allegations appear on their
face to be frivolous”). Accordingly, Judd’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis is denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Judd also moves for a stay pending the resolution of his motion before
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Judd argues his case should
be stayed because “one of the issues involved is a waiver of all fees pursuant
to the Twenty Fourth amendment and for a determination that the PLRA, 28
U.S.C. § 1915, et. seq., is unconstitutional and does not apply to voting

3

rights actions.” Docket 6. “A district court has broad discretion to stay
proceedings when appropriate to control its docket.” Sierra Club v. U.S. Army
Corps of Eng’rs, 446 F.3d 808, 816 (8th Cir. 2006). Because Judd’s claims
are frivolous on their face and because his complaint has not been served
upon defendants, the court finds a stay is not appropriate. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Judd’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket
2) is denied and his case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judd’s motion to stay (Docket 6) is
denied.
Dated July 18, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
CHIEF JUDGE

4