Maisano v. Haynes et al

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter assign a civil action number to this case, to enter judgment and to close the case, in accordance with Rule 58, Fed. R. Civ. P. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/12/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DALE MAISANO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM J. HAYNES, JR.,
JUDGE TODD CAMPBELL, JUDGE ALETA A.
TRAUGER, JUDGE KEVIN H. SHARP,
CHIEF JUDGE RANER C. COLLINS,
CORIZON HEALTH INC., ARIZONA STATE OF,
and DEPUTY WARDEN LINDA VEGA,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-mc-00402
Judge Trauger

ORDER
The complaint, consisting of two photo-copied pages, states as follows:
The plaintiff is going full circle with each defendant trying to obtain mental health
care, The latest is with D.W. Vega in case 13-C41-1934 a Prison Disciplinary Action
where it is explained how mental health care is part of the disciplinary process under
Wolff v. McDonnell 418 U.S. 539 (1974). She lives in a “Fantasy World” along with other
members of her staff. As for the other defendants, their world is basicly [sic] “Fantasy” as
well. At this point in time does any one recall Estelle v. Gamble . . . We are not talking
denied or delayed treatment. I’m telling you flat out Ø Zero Treatment None Nada.
“Deliberate Indifference” Criminal Conduct, Etc.
Judges become famous when they come to prison, Corizon is famous for upper
mgt being gone afraid of RICO violations. As well new personal [sic] refuse to work for
Corizon.
(ECF No. 1, at 1–2.) Solely on the basis of these vague factual allegations, the plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief and damages in the amount of “Ten Trillion Dollars U.S.” (Id.) The court notes that, although every
active judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee is named as a
defendant in this action, including the undersigned, the complaint contains no factual allegations that
concern the judicial defendants.
Recusal is normally required when the presiding judge is named as a defendant. Nonetheless, as
explained in numerous orders entered by this court responding to identical lawsuits filed by the plaintiff,1
the undersigned finds, based on the rule of necessity coupled with the facial frivolity of the complaint
itself, that recusal is not required.
1

See, e.g., Maisano v. Haynes et al. (M.D. Tenn.) (Trauger, J.), Case Nos. 3:14-cv-353 (Feb. 5,
2014 order, ECF No. 3), 3:14-cv-352 (Feb. 5, 2014 order, ECF No. 4), and 3:14-cv-344 (Feb. 5, 2014
order, ECF No. 3), just to name a few.

2

The complaint in this case is frivolous and fails to comply with the restraining order entered by
Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee on August 11, 1992. Maisano v. Lewis, CIV
92-1026-PHX-SMM (MS) (D. Ariz. Aug. 11, 1992) (Restraining Order). Pursuant to the restraining order,
any “[f]ailure to comply strictly with [its] terms . . . will be sufficient ground to deny leave to file.” Id.
Because the plaintiff made no attempt with his current filing to comply with the restraining order, the
present complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
An appeal of this order would not be in good faith, and the court will not grant leave to appeal in
forma pauperis.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter assign a civil action number to this case, to enter judgment and
to close the case, in accordance with Rule 58, Fed. R. Civ. P.
It is so ORDERED.

Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge