Perry v. YWCA Transitional Living

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 7/28/2013 GRANTING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Quina Perry. (cc: via US mail to Quina Perry)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
QUINA PERRY,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 13-C-789

LAKE VIEW APARTMENTS,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------QUINA PERRY,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 13-C-790

FIVE CORNERS OF FAITH
TRANSITIONAL LIVING,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------QUINA PERRY,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 13-C-791

YWCA TRANSITIONAL LIVING,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------QUINA PERRY,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 13-C-792

HOPE HOUSE,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------QUINA PERRY,
Plaintiff,
-vsCOMMUNITY HOMES, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 13-C-811

QUINA PERRY,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 13-C-812

MCKINLEY GARDENS,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------QUINA PERRY,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 13-C-813

METROPOLITAN ASSOCIATES,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

The Court is addressing these complaints all at once because they are mostly
interrelated and they were all filed within six days of each other (the first four on July
12, the last three on July 18). Quina Perry’s social security disability appeal, Case No.
13-C-742, is not affected by this Order. Ms. Perry is proceeding pro se and requests
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which means that the Court must determine at the
outset if her allegations are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The sheer number of lawsuits filed at the same time, combined with the
outlandish requests for relief – e.g., Case No. 13-C-789 (“I would like to propose an
-2-

offer of 22 billion dollars”); Case No. 13-C-790 (“I propose an offer of 87 billion
dollars”); Case No. 13-C-791 (“I would like [to] propose an offer of 90 billion
dollars”); Case No. 13-C-792 (“I would like to propose an offer of 80 billion dollars”);
Case No. 13-C-812 (“I would like to propose an offer of four million dollars”); Case
No. 13-C-813 (“I would like to propose an offer of ten trillion dollars”) – strongly
suggests to the Court that Ms. Perry has a malicious motive for filing these lawsuits.
See, e.g., Cain v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 982 F. Supp. 1132, 1136 (E.D. Va. 1997)
(a complaint will be deemed malicious where the plaintiff’s motive is to harass and
vex defendants or if the plaintiff acts in reckless disregard of another’s rights, as
opposed to seeking redress for a legitimate claim).
Moreover, the Court has reviewed the complaints individually and finds that
none of them state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Perry’s complaints tell
the same basic story:

she was denied housing or denied certain housing

accommodations because of her race and/or her disability. Perry’s allegations are pro
forma. “A plaintiff still must provide only enough detail to give the defendant fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests and, through his
allegations, show that it is plausible, rather than merely speculative, that he is entitled
to relief.” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1083 (7th Cir. 2008) (emphasis
added). Perry’s tale of rampant discrimination at seemingly every place she attempted
to find housing doesn’t “hold[] together.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400,
404 (7th Cir. 2010).
-3-

Finally, the Court notes one of the complaints, Case No. 13-C-811, is a bit of
an outlier, as it alleges that Perry’s former employer wrongfully garnished her wages.
This complaint also fails to state a claim, and it definitely fails to state a claim under
federal law. The parties to this action are not diverse, so the Court would lack subject
matter jurisdiction even if it stated an actionable claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
The various motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED,
but all seven of these lawsuits are DISMISSED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 28th day of July, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-4-