Hurt, Tyrone v. D. C. Government, et al. et al

Filing 4

ORDER dismissing this case for plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 2/14/2013. (jef),(ps)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TYRONE HURT and THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER Plaintiffs, v. 12-cv-939-bbc WADE MICHAEL PAIGE, Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TYRONE HURT, ORDER Plaintiff, v. 13-cv-33-bbc D.C. GOVERNMENT, et al. and CORPORATION COUNCIL OFFICE, et al., Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Tyrone Hurt, a citizen of the District of Columbia, has filed two proposed complaints, both of which are borderline illegible. In case no. 12-cv-939-bbc, plaintiff names as a defendant Wade Michael Page, the gunman in the August 5, 2012 mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The allegations in his complaint seem to be aimed at the Ku Klux Klan for violating the rights of Americans, although he does not include any allegations suggesting that he has been harmed personally by either Page or the Ku Klux 1 Klan. In case no. 13-cv-33, bbc, plaintiff seems to be asking the court to review a decision made by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in his Social Security case. Plaintiff has asked for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and Magistrate Judge Crocker has concluded that he presently has no means with which to pay an initial partial payment of the $350 fee for filing each complaint. The next step is determining whether plaintiff’s proposed complaint is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff appears to be new to this court, but he is no stranger to federal litigation. He has filed more than 300 lawsuits over the past 10 years. An cursory review of some of these cases reveals that plaintiff faces filing bars in the Northern District of California and the District of Maryland and perhaps in other districts. Hurt v. All Sweepstakes Contests, case no. 12-cv-4187-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2013); In re Hurt, case no. 12-mc-512 (D. Md. Dec. 26, 2012). The Maryland court put it succinctly: It appears from the filings submitted by Mr. Hurt that his claims are not submitted on a good faith basis, are frivolous, and have caused expenditure of considerable resources by courthouse personnel in deciphering the claims raised and processing the papers filed. In fact, it would appear that so long as there are ills plaguing our society, Mr. Hurt will not run out of vexatious claims to file in this Court. Hurt, 12-mc-512 at 2. Plaintiff’s current allegations are no less frivolous. In his first case, he does not explain how he has been injured by defendant Page, and in the second case it is well-settled that this court cannot review the decisions of the Court of Appeals for the 2 District of Columbia. Therefore I will dismiss both cases for plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. Should plaintiff file any more frivolous lawsuits in this district, the court will consider entering a filing bar of its own. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned cases are DISMISSED for plaintiff Tyrone Hurt’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants. Entered this 14th day of February, 2013. BY THE COURT: /s/ BARBARA B. CRABB District Judge 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?