Ross v. United States et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER accepting and adopting 10 Report and Recommendations. The Complaint [Doc. 2] is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because it frivolous, fails to state a claim, and is against Defendants who are immune from a suit for damages. Signed by District Judge Charles E Atchley, Jr on 11/26/2024. (DCB) Mailed to Charles Michael Ross 8407 Oak View Drive Chattanooga, TN 37421.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
CHARLES MICHAEL ROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:24-cv-213
Judge Atchley
Magistrate Judge Steger

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On August 26, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger filed a Report
and Recommendation [Doc. 10] (the “R&R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the rules of this
Court. Magistrate Judge Steger screened the Complaint [Doc. 2] pursuant to the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and found that the Complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, and is against Defendants who are immune. Judge Steger
therefore recommends this action be dismissed.
For reasons that follow, the Report & Recommendation [Doc. 10] will be ACCEPTED
and ADOPTED and this action DISMISSED because it is frivolous, fails to state a claim for
relief, and is against defendants who are immune.
I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is the sixth of ten lawsuits Plaintiff filed between June 10 and August 18, 2024. The

first three, Case Nos. 1:24-cv-190, 1:24-cv-191, and 1:24-cv-196, all relate to Plaintiff’s attempts
to challenge state court judgment(s). He alleges, inter alia, that he was denied due process and the
right to proceed in forma pauperis. In these actions, he sued several judges presiding over his state
court actions, as well as the State of Tennessee and Hamilton County Circuit and Chancery Courts

and/or Clerks of Court. All three cases were found to be related and assigned to the undersigned
and United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee.
Dissatisfied with the pace of his federal cases, Plaintiff began suing the judges of this Court.
First, he sued Magistrate Judge Lee and Chief Judge Travis R. McDonough (as well as Merrick
Garland and Chief Justice Roberts), in Case No. 1:24-cv-207. In that action, he alleged this Court
had already mishandled his first three cases by not addressing them sooner and not immediately
returning his phone calls. Based on these allegations against Judges Lee and McDonough, Plaintiff
claimed he was willfully conspired against by Tennessee and federal officials.
This fourth lawsuit, Case No. 1:24-cv-207, was filed on June 24, 2024, and Judge Lee
recused from the first three actions the same day. On June 25, 2024, Chief Judge McDonough
reassigned those three cases to Magistrate Judge Steger.
In the instant complaint, Ross alleges that the very next day, June 26th, he called Judge
Steger’s chambers and the chambers of the undersigned to get a “status update” regarding the first
three cases. [Doc. 2 at 6]. He called both chambers again the following day, June 27th, and left
voicemails. He alleges his voicemails were not returned by 10:00 a.m. the next day, June 28th. A
few hours later, he filed this action.
The gravamen of Ross’s allegations is that the Court did not return his phone calls within
24 hours and did not rule on his motions to proceed in forma pauperis quickly enough. It is worth
noting that his first case, 1:24-cv-190, had been pending for only 18 days at the time he filed this
action. As in Case No. 1:24-cv-207, Ross here alleges he has been conspired against by “officials
of the government of Tennessee and the United States.” [Doc. 2 at 7]. He seeks “$84,000 in
damages for failure of U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger & U.S. District Judge Charles
Atchley Jr. to promptly carry out their duties under the law, with regards to case number 1:24-cv-

2

190, 1:24-cv-191 & 1:24-cv-196 which involves the violation of my rights by judges and
employees of the Hamilton County Courts of Tennessee.” [Id. at 4]. He also asks that these cases
be reassigned to “judges who will promptly carry out their duties under the law.” [Id.].
II.

ANALYSIS
a. 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)
Though Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R or moved for the recusal of either presiding

judge, the Court nonetheless believes it prudent to explain why recusal is not warranted in this
action. Ordinarily, 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5) requires sua sponte recusal when a judge is a party to a
proceeding. Yet “[t]here is as much obligation upon a judge not to recuse himself when there is no
occasion as there is for him to do so when there is.” Easley v. Univ. of Mich. Bd. of Regents, 853
F.2d 1351, 1356 (6th Cir. 1988). And courts are not without tools to handle litigants such as Mr.
Ross, who file a string of lawsuits against every judge who interacts with their litigation.
Mr. Ross has demonstrated a clear pattern of quickly filing suit against any judicial officer
who does not immediately provide him with the relief he seeks or issues a ruling against him.
“Judges should not be held hostage to his kind of tactic and automatically recuse themselves simply
because they or their fellow judges on the court are named defendants in a truly meritless lawsuit.”
Jones v. City of Buffalo, 867 F. Supp. 1155, 1163 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). Based on Ross’s allegations,
he sued a judge presiding over one of his state cases while it was still pending, prompting that
judge to recuse. See Case No. 1:24-cv-196 [Doc. 2 at pg. 6]. Having lost in multiple state court
actions, Mr. Ross then filed three cases in federal court against, inter alia, the state court judges
involved. Unable to obtain an immediate ruling and incorrectly believing he could communicate
ex parte with the Court at will, he began suing the judges of this Court.

3

In addition, “the rule of necessity allows a judge who would normally be disqualified to
hear a case when ‘the case cannot be heard otherwise.’” Maisano v. Hayes, No. 3:13-mc-0207,
2014 WL 202038 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 17, 2014) (quoting United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 213
(1980)). The “ancient” rule of necessity imposes “a duty to hear and decide the case if it cannot
otherwise be heard” and “prevails over the disqualification standards of § 455.” United States v.
Will, 449 U.S. at 201. While Mr. Ross has not yet sued every judge in this district, he has alleged
a broad conspiracy implicating the Tennessee Chancery and Circuit Court judges and the judges
of the Eastern District of Tennessee. He has twice demonstrated that the failure to immediately
return his phone calls will generate a new lawsuit. As best the Court can discern from his pleadings,
he has sued nearly every judge who has presided over his recent string of at least 12 lawsuits. He
has now sued all three judges presiding over his federal cases, as well as Chief Judge McDonough,
Chief Justice John Roberts, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and several other governmental
entities and judicial employees.
Based on Plaintiff’s pattern of suing every judge involved in his lawsuits, the breadth of
his conspiracy allegations, and the completely meritless nature of this and prior lawsuits, the Court
finds it unnecessary to recuse. Allowing Plaintiff to work his way through every judge in this
District until the rule of necessity undoubtedly applies serves no purpose other than to waste
judicial resources. See also Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 F. App’x 231 (11th Cir. 2008) (judge named
as a party did not err in failing to recuse where plaintiff’s complaint was frivolous and he indicated
he would eventually amend his complaint to add all of the judges of the district); see also McCurry
v. Thomas, Case No. 2:23-cv-130, 2024 WL 3676565 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 6, 2024) (a plaintiff “may
not disqualify every judicial officer within the Eastern District of Tennessee simply because [he]
has filed suit against other judges within the district”).

4

b. Adoption of Report and Recommendation [Doc. 10]
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must screen actions filed by plaintiffs proceeding
in forma pauperis. If at any time the Court determines such an action is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief, the Court must dismiss the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Conducting this review,
Magistrate Judge Steger recommends this action be dismissed because it is frivolous, fails to state
a claim, and is against Defendants who are immune from a suit for damages. [Doc. 10 at 4].
Plaintiff was advised that he had 14 days to object to the R&R and that failure to do so
would forfeit any right to appeal. [Doc. 10 at 6 n.1]; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district
court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other
standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). He did not file an objection.
The Court has nonetheless independently reviewed the record and agrees with Judge
Steger’s well-reasoned findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff’s Complaint is completely
frivolous. The gravamen of his allegations is that the Court failed to take action on his cases in the
11 to 18 days in which they were pending and failed to return his voicemails within 24 hours.
Plaintiff does not have a right to ex parte communications with the Court nor does he have a right
to verbal “status updates.” The Court speaks through its orders, which are available on the public
docket. There is simply no cause of action for Mr. Ross’s grievances.
III.

REFERRAL OF LITIGANT
Finally, the Court notes that Charles Michael Ross has already been referred to Chief Judge

Travis R. McDonough for consideration of whether injunctive measures are appropriate pursuant
to Standing Order 18-04. See Ross v. State of Tennessee, Case No. 1:24-cv-196 [Doc. 17]. As the

5

Court explained in its Memorandum Opinion and Order [Doc. 17] in that case, many of Plaintiff’s
complaints relate to the same or similar subject matter. In particular, Ross v. Garland, Case No.
1:24-cv-207, is very similar to the instant action. As here, it asserts that the judges of this Court
have failed to act promptly in Mr. Ross’s lawsuits and failed to return his phone calls. The
duplicative nature of these filings further supports a potential injunction on Mr. Ross’s filing
abilities.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of

law set forth in the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 10]. The Complaint [Doc. 2] is
DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because it frivolous, fails to state a claim, and is
against Defendants who are immune from a suit for damages.
A separate judgment shall enter.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Charles E. Atchley, Jr.
CHARLES E. ATCHLEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6