Opinion
Misc. Case No. 1:10mc041.
August 13, 2010
ORDER
Proposed pro se plaintiff, Frank Newsome, a resident of Greene County, Ohio, seeks approval from myself, as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, for the filing of an in forma pauperis lawsuit in this Court. Plaintiff has filed numerous prior lawsuits against an assortment of judges, lawyers, law enforcement officials, and neighbors, all of which have been concluded against him. In Newsome v. Schenks, Case No. 2:04-cv-211, a case decided against Newsome on March 5, 2005, Judge William O. Bertelsman of the Eastern District of Kentucky sitting by designation ordered in pertinent part as follows:
(11) plaintiff is BARRED from filing lawsuits in forma pauperis in this court asserting the claims brought here, or similar claims, against these or related defendants, without the prior written approval of the Chief Judge or unless plaintiff is represented by legal counsel.Newsome v. Schenks, Case No. 2:04-cv-211 (Doc. 81).
Newsome's proposed complaint reveals an assortment of allegations against the Sheriff of Greene County, a deputy sheriff, and two of Newsome's neighbors, all of whom have been previously named as defendants in numerous lawsuits. The complaint repeats many of the same allegations contained in Newsome's previous lawsuits against these individuals and others. These claims have already been fully considered by the Court in Newsome's many other cases and will not be reconsidered.
The "new" allegations against the named defendants — that Newsome's neighbors destroyed his fence, trespassed on his property, and threw trash on his property; that sheriff deputies failed to adequately investigate or take action against his neighbors; and that deputies and his neighbors are conspiring to make Newsome leave the County — do not state a federal claim for relief. Newsome's allegations of wrongdoing by his neighbors do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. In any event, his neighbors are not state actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability, Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 590 (6th Cir. 2003), and Newsome's conclusory allegations of a conspiracy between his neighbors and sheriff deputies do not alter this conclusion. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Nor do the allegations that deputies failed to adequately investigate Newsome's complaints or take action against his neighbors state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989). See also Woods v. Miamisburg City Schools, 254 F. Supp.2d 868, 873-74 (S.D. Ohio 2003) ("The law is clear that a private citizen has no constitutional, statutory, or common law right to require a public official to investigate or prosecute a crime.").
Because Newsome fails to raise any claims that have not already been fully considered in his prior cases or that are cognizable in this federal court, he is not entitled to file this patently frivolous document.
Judge Bertelsman's thorough opinion and order in Newsome v. Schenks, Case No. 2:04-cv-211 sets forth the entire history of Mr. Newsome's many previous litigations. It would serve no useful purpose to further recount them here. The Court does, however, append a copy of that well-reasoned decision for the convenience of the reader.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to retain a copy of Newsome's proffered pleading, but return the original to him, together with a copy of this Order, which shall be filed with a miscellaneous case number.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights case which is before the court on numerous motions, including motions by all defendants to dismiss and for sanctions against the plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes these motions and moves for summary judgment in his favor.The court has reviewed this matter and now issues the following opinion and order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Frank Newsome is a resident of Greene County, Ohio. Proceeding pro se, he brings claims here that have their genesis in an incident that occurred on September 11, 1999. On that date, a deputy of the Greene County Sheriff's Department shot Newsome's pet lioness, Nila, after she escaped from his farm. Following the shooting, Newsome sued Jerry Erwin, the Greene County Sheriff, and several Greene County officials in this court, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Newsome v. Erwin, et al., Case No. 99-473 (S.D. Ohio at Dayton) ( "Erwin").
The Erwin case was assigned to Judge Walter Rice and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael Merz. The Greene County defendants were represented by a Dayton attorney, Jeffrey Turner.
In 2002, Judge Rice, adopting a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Merz, entered summary judgment in favor of all defendants. Newsome did not appeal that decision, but instead began filing a series of lawsuits against Rice, Merz, Turner, various Greene County officials, and the local television station.
Newsome's previous lawsuits naming Rice, Merz, and/or Turner are: Newsome v. Merz, et al., Case No. 99-624 (S.D. Ohio at Dayton) (suing Merz and Turner); Newsome v. United States District Court, Case No. 01-422 (S.D. Ohio at Dayton) (suing Rice, Merz, and Turner; Newsome v. Turner, et al., Case No. 02-308 (S.D. Ohio at Dayton); (suing Turner); Newsome v. Merz, Case No. 02-363 (S.D. Ohio at Dayton) (suing Merz); Newsome v. Nemeth, et al., Case No. 03-47 (S.D. Ohio at Columbus) (suing Merz and Turner).
Generally speaking, Newsome alleged in those lawsuits that Judge Rice, Judge Merz, attorney Turner, and Greene County officials conspired against him to deprive him of his rights and to cause his lawsuits to be dismissed. All cases have been dismissed in favor of the defendants and, in one, the Sixth Circuit imposed monetary sanctions on plaintiff.
In a 2003 opinion, Judge Marbley stated that Newsome has filed "at least six previous cases which have been dismissed for failure to state a claim." Newsome v. Nemeth, No. C-2-03-47, 2003 WL 2012561, at *1 (S.D. Ohio April 9, 2003). In a 2001 opinion, the Sixth Circuit sanctioned Newsome for filing a frivolous appeal in a case in which he sued Magistrate Judge Merz and attorney Jeffrey Turner, both of whom are defendants in the case at bar. See Newsome v. Merz, et al., No. 00-4307, 2001 WL 1006189, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 21, 2001).
In this lawsuit, Newsome repeats many of the allegations made in the original Erwin lawsuit regarding the shooting of Nila by the Greene County Sheriff's Department; the reporting of that story by the local television station; various hostile encounters with Greene County law enforcement; and an alleged conspiracy among local officials to force him to leave Greene County.
In addition to Rice, Merz, and Turner, Newsome names as defendants: William Schenk, Greene County Prosecutor; Terri Mazur, Greene County Clerk of Courts; Steven Wolover, former Assistant Greene County Prosecutor; Gene Fischer, Greene County Sheriff; Channel 7 News Television; Jim Senese, Reg Chapman, and Charity Taylor, Channel 7 reporters; Chuck Hamlin, a Channel 7 photographer; Stacie White, a Channel 7 producer; Clyde Coite, Channel 7 director; John Doe, an unknown Channel 7 photographer; and Scott Thompson, Newsome's neighbor.
Newsome further alleges a conspiracy among Rice, Merz, and Turner aimed at concealing Rice's and Merz's "sexual dysfunctions," a conspiracy which he alleges results in favoritism by the judges towards Turner and the dismissal of Newsome's lawsuits.
Newsome also alleges that Merz violated the rules of court in earlier cases; that he threatened sanctions against Newsome as a form of intimidation; and that he told an attorney about Newsome's mental illness in order to frighten the attorney from representing Newsome.
Newsome alleges that the Greene County defendants slandered him and engaged in a conspiracy against him because he is mentally disabled. He alleges that the Channel 7 defendants have tried to "control" his court actions and his life.
As to his neighbor Scott Thompson, Newsome alleges that Thompson threatened Newsome and that he had Newsome's barn burglarized.
Newsome's filings contain lengthy recitations of other alleged facts about Thompson, but none appear pertinent to Newsome's claim against Thompson.
Newsome styles his claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986.
ANALYSIS
A. Defendants Rice and Merz
Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages for those acts taken while they are acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). This immunity applies even when the judges' acts are in error, malicious, or were in excess of his or her jurisdiction. Id. at 356.
Applying this principle, the Sixth Circuit has previously held that Magistrate Judge Merz is immune from suit on claims such as Newsome's for monetary damages under the civil rights statutes. See Newsome v. Merz, et al., No. 00-4307, 2001 WL 1006189, at *1 (6th Cir. Aug. 21, 2001). The same principle would, of course, apply to Judge Rice. The Sixth Circuit further held that federal judges are immune from suits such as this seeking equitable relief. Id.
Newsome offers no authority or argument as to why these principles do not bar his claims against these defendants. Therefore, Newsome fails to state constitutional claims against defendants Rice and Merz, and their motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment will be granted. B. Defendants Scott Thompson and Jeffrey Turner
Merz's alternative arguments are also well-taken. That is, for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he was not acting under color of state law, and the claims against him here appear to be exactly the same claims brought by Newsome in earlier cases and would thus be barred by res judicata. In addition, for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, the only possible class-based animus implicated by Newsome's allegations is that he has a mental disability. However, Newsome does not allege that Merz bore him animus on this basis, and, moreover, the Sixth Circuit has held that a mental disability does not constitute the sort of class or group covered by § 1985. See Bartell v. Lohiser, 215 F.3d 550, 560 (6th Cir. 2000). In any event, as the judicial immunity defense is dispositive, these alternative grounds need not be discussed further.
Defendant Scott Thompson, Newsome's neighbor, is entitled to dismissal because Newsome does not allege that any of Thompson's actions were taken under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Newsome v. Nemeth, No. C-2-03-47, 2003 WL 2012561, at *1 (S.D. Ohio April 9, 2003) (holding that Newsome failed to state § 1983 claim against private individual) (citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981)).
Further, for purposes of § 1985 and § 1986, Newsome does not allege that Thompson was part of the conspiracy among Greene County officials and federal judges.
Similarly, defendant Jeffrey Turner, acting as a lawyer representing his clients, "was not a state actor within the meaning of § 1983." Newsome v. Merz, et al., No. 00-4307, 2001 WL 1006189, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 21, 2001) (citation omitted) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 brought by Newsome against Turner).
Both Thompson and Turner are, therefore, entitled to dismissal.
D. Greene County Defendants
Plaintiff's allegation that the Greene County defendants engaged in a conspiracy to "defame, slander, and discriminate against him because [he] is a member of a class of disabled people" fails to state a claim because, even construing this allegation as true, the Sixth Circuit has held that a mental disability does not constitute the sort of class or group covered by § 1985. See Bartell v. Lohiser, 215 F.3d 550, 560 (6th Cir. 2000).
As to defendants Schenk and Wolover, plaintiff's claims regarding their use of informants and other alleged acts done in their capacities as prosecutors are barred by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. See Newsome v. Nemeth, No. C-2-03-47, 2003 WL 2012561, at *1 (S.D. Ohio April 9, 2003) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976)).
As to defendant Mazur, plaintiff alleges only that she appeared on television in 2003 to discuss plaintiff's animals and his lawsuit. This allegation states no cognizable claim of action under § 1983 because plaintiff does not allege that Mazur deprived him of any constitutional right.
To the extent that plaintiff asserts a claim for slander, he has produced no admissible evidence that these defendants made defamatory statements about him, as his affidavits contain multiple layers of hearsay and/or they allege statements that are not defamatory as a matter of law.
E. Channel 7 Defendants
As noted above, a federal civil rights claim will not lie against private individuals who are not acting under color of state law. Plaintiff's allegations against the Channel 7 defendants thus state no cognizable federal claim.
Moreover, his allegations that these defendants tried to "control" him and, through their coverage of his legal disputes, tried to "make it political" state no claim for violation of any other federal or state law.
F. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment does not articulate any basis for entering judgment in his favor, not does it otherwise conform to the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 by setting forth record evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiff simply refers to all his prior filings which, as the court has held above, do not state cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment will, therefore, be denied. D. Sanctions
Plaintiff filed nine other miscellaneous documents which, although styled as motions (Doc. ###54, 57, 58, 59, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80), in substance merely supplement the record with additional factual allegations.
Defendants argue that, given plaintiff's history of filing repeated, frivolous actions against them, and given that sanctions imposed on plaintiff by the Sixth Circuit have failed to deter such filings, this court should enjoin plaintiff from filing further actions in forma pauperis against these defendants without the advance written consent of the Chief Judge or unless plaintiff is represented by counsel.
In support of their request, defendants cite Sassower v. Mead Data Central, Inc., 510 U.S. 4 (1993). There, the Supreme Court barred a pro se litigant from filing further in forma pauperis petitions for certiorari after he filed numerous, patently frivolous petitions.
Here, plaintiff has clearly abused the process of the courts by filing repeated lawsuits alleging claims that have previously been dismissed with prejudice. As noted, the Sixth Circuit has sanctioned plaintiff by imposing costs on him for his frivolous appeal in an earlier case against defendant Merz. The threat or imposition of monetary sanctions thus does appear adequate to deter plaintiff from continuing to file lawsuits asserting claims that have already been adjudicated or are otherwise frivolous.
The court is sensitive to plaintiff's belief that his grievances have gone unresolved, but the fact remains that he has had adequate opportunities to avail himself of the judicial processes on the claims he has again asserted in this action. That his claims have not been resolved in his favor does not excuse his continued filing of frivolous cases, which flouts the rules of procedure that apply equally to all civil litigants.
Finally, the court notes that, in determining the appropriateness of sanctions, it has considered the fact that plaintiff's repeated frivolous filings tax the resources of an already-overburdened federal judiciary, with the additional unnecessary costs ultimately being borne by the taxpayers.
Therefore, the court will enjoin plaintiff from filing lawsuits in forma pauperis in this court asserting the claims brought here, or similar claims, against these or related defendants, without the prior written approval of the Chief Judge or unless plaintiff is represented by legal counsel.
Therefore, having reviewed this matter, and the court being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) defendant Merz's motion for summary judgment and for sanctions (Doc. #8) and defendant Rice's motion dismiss or for summary judgment (Doc. #65) be, and are hereby, GRANTED;
(2) defendant Merz's motion to strike (Doc. #56) be, and is hereby, DENIED AS MOOT;
(3) defendant Scott Thompson's motion to dismiss (Doc. #28) be, and is hereby, GRANTED, and plaintiff's miscellaneous motions regarding defendant Thompson (Doc. ##53, 55, 71) be, and are hereby, DENIED;
(4) defendant Jeffrey Turner's motion for summary judgment and for sanctions (Doc. #34) be, and is hereby, GRANTED;
(5) the Greene County defendants' motion for summary judgment and for sanctions (Doc. #32) be, and is hereby, GRANTED;
(6) the motion for judgment on the pleadings by the Channel 7 defendants (Doc. #39) be, and is hereby, GRANTED;
(7) plaintiff's motions to accept affidavits (Doc. ##31, 50) be, and are hereby, GRANTED;
(8) plaintiff's motions to compel (Doc. ##35, 43, 49) be, and are hereby, DENIED;
(9) plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. #59) be, and is hereby, DENIED;
(10) plaintiff's remaining miscellaneous motions (Doc. ##54, 57, 58, 59, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80) be, and are hereby, DENIED; and
(11) plaintiff is hereby BARRED from filing lawsuits in forma pauperis in this court asserting the claims brought here, or similar claims, against these or related defendants, without the prior written approval of the Chief Judge or unless plaintiff is represented by legal counsel.
A separate judgment shall enter concurrently herewith. FRANK NEWSOME N/A DEPUTY SHERIFF LEMASTER, GREENE COUNTY SCOTT AND TONYA THOMPSON ET. AL. THOMPSON SHERIFF GENE FISCHER, GREENE COUNTY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO (ENTER ABOVE THE NAME OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ACTION) IF THE PLAINTIFF IS A PRISONER: PRISONER # vs. (ENTER ABOVE THE NAME OF THE DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION) IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS PLEASE LIST THEM: ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________COMPLAINT
I. PARTIES TO THE ACTION:
FRANK NEWSOME 92 QUINBY LANE DAYTON, OHIO 45432 937-2533629 PLAINTIFF: PLACE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE LINES BELOW. THE ADDRESS YOU GIVE MUST BE THE ADDRESS THAT THE COUNT MAY CONTACT YOU AND MAIL DOCUMENTS TO YOU. A TELEPHONE NUMBER IS REQUIRED. NAME — FULL NAME PLEASE — PRINT ADDRESS: STREET, CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NUMBER IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS IN THIS SUIT, A SEPARATE PIECE OF PAPER SHOULD BE ATTACHED IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THIS PAGE WITH THEIR FULL NAMES, ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONENUMBERS. IF NO ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS EXIST CONTINUE WITH THIS FORM.PAGE 2 AND 3 OF THIS FORM DEAL ONLY WITH A PLAINTIFF THAT IS INCARCERATED AT THE TIME OF FILING THIS COMPLAINT.
DEFENDANTS:
PLACE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH DEFENDANT YOU LISTED IN THE CAPTION ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS COMPLAINT. THIS FORM IS INVALID UNLESS EACH DEFENDANT APPEARS WITH FULL ADDRESS FOR PROPER SERVICE.DEPUTY LEMASTER GREENE COUNTY SHERIFF, S DEPARTMENT, 105 E. MARKET STREET, XENIA, OHIO-45385 SCOTT THOMPSON 2921 SOUTH CHARLSTON ROAD, SOUTH SOUTH SHARLSTON, OHIO-45368 TONYA THOMPSON, 2921 SOUTH CHARLSTON ROAD, SOUTH CHARLSTON, OHIO-45368 sheriff gene fischer, GREENE COUNTY SHERIFF, XENIA, OHIO-45385 SHERIFF GENE FISCHER, 105 EAST MARKET STREET
1. NAMES — FULL NAME PLEASE ADDRESS — STREET, CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE 2. 3. 4. _____________________________________________________________ 5. ______________________________________________________________ 6. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS, PLEASE CONTINUE LISTING THEM.STATEMENT OF CLAIM
PLEASE WRITE AS BRIEFLY AS POSSIBLE THE FACTS OF YOUR CASE. DESCRIBE HOW EACH DEFENDANT IS INVOLVED. INCLUDE THE NAME OF ALL PERSONS INVOLVED. GIVE DATES AND PLACES.
DO NOT GIVE ANY LEGAL ARGUMENTS OR CITE ANY CASES OR STATUTES.
IF YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CLAIMS; PLEASE NUMBER AND SET FORTH EACH CLAIM IN A SEPARATE PARAGRAPH. USE AS MUCH SPACE AS YOU NEED. YOU ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE PAPERS WE GIVE YOU. ATTACH EXTRA SHEETS THAT DEAL WITH YOUR STATEMENT CLAIM IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THIS PIECE OF PAPER.
ON OR ABOUT JUNE OF 2009 I CALLED SHERIFF, S DEPARTMENT FOR DEFENDANT THOMPSONS AND OTHERS DESTROYING A FENCE AND TRESPASSING ON PROPERTY A DEPUTY ADKINS CAME WITH ANOTHER DEPUTY TAKING PICTURES AND MY STAEMENT. NOTHING WAS DONE. I EXPECTED REPRISALS AND SCOTT THOMPSON BEGAN DESTRYING ANOTHER FENCE AND I FIXED IT BACK TWICE AND IT CONTINUED. TONYA THOMPSON BEGAN THROWING TRASH ON PROPERTY AND A BLODDY KOTEX. AND I CALLED SHERIFF, S DEPARTMENT. IT, S BEGAN GOING ON TEN YEARS NOW BECAUSE NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN DONE TO CORRECT IT. A DEPUTY LEMASTERS WAS SENT OUT AND I TOLD HIM WHAT I HAVE OBSERVED AND HE TOLD ME THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AND BEGAN ASKING ME ABOUT MY PAST AND WHAT CRIMES I HAD COMMITTED. DISCPIMINATING ABOUT MY PAST 30-40 years AGO. RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY. IT HURT MY FEELINGS AND DENIED ME EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LWAS. IN 04-211 CASE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM O. BERTLESMAN FOUND THOMPSON HAD MY BARN BURGLARIZED TWICE AND THREATENED ME. SEE LETTERS FROM PROSECU TOR RON LEWIS. MEANACING. ON OR ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO I CALLED SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AGAIN FOR DESTRYING FENCE AND A DEPUTY WAS SENT. I TOLD HIM ITS BEEN GOING ON A YEAR NOW, SCOTT THOMPSON KEEPS DOING IT BECAUSE NOTHING H AS BEEN DONE. THE DEPUTY SAID HE WASNT GOING TO WRITE UP A REPORT BUT HE TOOK PICTURES OF FENCE WHILE WHILE SOMEONE AT THOMPSONS WATCHED AND HE SAW IT TOO. ON JUNE 12th AT APPROXIMATELY 7:00PM A MALE GOT IN HIS VEHICLE AND CAME UPON THE PROPERTY TRESSPASING TO COMMIT A CRIME, SUCH AS MEANACING AND TO DO PROPERTY DAMAGE. I WAS RAISING THE BARN DOOR AND HE TOOK OFF FOLLOWING SCOTT THOMPSON IN ANOTHER RED CAMARO. DEPUTY LEMASTER, SCOTT THOMPSON, TONYA THOMPSON AND UNKNOWN MALE LIVING WITH THOMPSONS ARE CONSPIRING TO MAKE ME LEAVE COUNTY. DENYING ME EQUAL PROTECT AND DUE PROCESS OF THE CONSTITUTION. IN 04-211 CASE NEWSOME V. SCHENCKS JUDGE BERTLESMAN FOUND I HAD A MENTAL DISABILITY AND THERE WERE SEVERAL HOSTILE ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND GREENE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND SCOTT THOMPSON THREATENED ME AND HAD MY BARN BURGLARIZED TWICE. MORE RECENT CASE NOS. OF CRIMINAL TRESPASSING AND PROPERTY DAMAGES. DEPUTY JAMES ADKINS-09-20018 /5/16/09. AND DEPUTY BALONIER-10-7850-09-60. I CALLED DEPUTY BALONIER AND REPORTED A SECOND TRESPASSING OF A TRUCK TRESPASS ING ON PROPERTY THAT SCOTT THOMPSON SENT AND MANIPULATED. I AM BEING DENIED ACCESS TO THE COURTS BECAUSE OF MY MENTAL DISABILITY, A ND I AM WITHOUT FUNDS TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY AND CANNOT GET AN ATTORNEY TO TAKE CASE WITHOUT MONEY. I CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR A CONFERENCE WITH AN ATTORNEY. LEGAL AID WILL NOT HELP ME. I'VE TRIED. AND I HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE TO THAT IN 07-007 NEWSOME V. PORTUNE. I A M ON A FIXED INCOME OF $600. a MONTH. I HAVE CALLED HUNDREDS OF ATTORNEYS NO SUCCESS. SEPTEMBER 11, 1999 I WAS THREATENED TO LEAVE COUNTY BY THEN SHERIFF JERRY ERWIN AND SCOTT AND TONYA THOMPSON WERE THERE. FOR TEN YEARS NOW. THE BROTHER DOUG THOMPSON CONSPIRED WITH SCOTT THOMPSON AND TONYA TO MAKE ME LEAVE COUNTY. DOUG THOMPSON GORS IN AND OUT OF PRISON FREQUENTLY AS A DRUG USER, BURGLAR AND INFORMANT FOR BURCE MAYS DRUG TASK FORCE, AND SHERIFF'S OFFICE. SCOTT THOMPSON HAS GROUPS OF PEOPLE LIVING AT HIS HOUSE AND USING MEANACING.
SHERIFF GENE FISCHER IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE DEPUTIES WHO WORK FOR HIM AND THE OVERALL OPERATION OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. AND DEPUTY SHERIFF LEMASTERS. IT WILL VIOLATE ARTICLE III. OF THE CONSTITUTION TO FAIL TO PROVIDE A FEDERAL JUDICIAL FORUM FOR THE RESOLUTION OF SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM. SUPPORT FOR THIS PROPOSITION IS FOUND IN OESTEREICH V. SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, 393 U.S. 233 (XXXX) (1969). ALSO BIVENS V. SIX UN KNOWN NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U.S. 388 (1970). PANZERELLA V. BOYLE, 406 F.SUPP. 787 D.R.I. (1975).
Franh NewsomeNOTE
THE DEPUTY THAT SAID HE WAS'NT GOING TO WRITE IT UP WAS PROTECTING ME BECAUSE I TOLD HIM THE THOMPSONS TAKE REPRISALS AGAINST ME. HE SAID THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GET PAPERWORK AND KNOW WHAT I HAD R EPORTED.CLAIM: I AM BEING DENIED ACCESS TO THE COURTS BECAUSE CASES WERE MADE POLITICAL BY WALTER RICE AND MICHEAL MERZ, CONSPIRING WITH CHERYL MCHENRY, ANCHOR 7 NEWS AND HER HUSBAND LTL BOB CHABALI DAYTON POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND JUDGE STEPEN WOLAVER AND PROSECUTOR WILLIAM SCHE SCHENCKS CALLED ME NAMES FOR SUEING SHERIFF ERWIN ON TELEVISION WITH TERI MEZUR. RICE RICE, MERZ, AND CHERYL MCHENRY WENT ON TELEVISION AND SAID GREENE COUNTY REPUBLICANS WERE DENY IMG ME ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND I WOULD PICK UP A GUN. NEAR TWO HOURS. NO JUDICIAL IMUNITY. POLITICAL AND PARTISAN.
RELIEF
IN THIS SECTION PLEASE STATE (WRITE) BRIEFLY EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT THE COURT TO DO FOR YOU. MAKE NO LEGAL ARGUMENT, CITE NO CASES OR STATUTES.THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON NOW FOR TEN YEARS AND HAS NOT STOPPED AND I AM ASKING FOR COMPENSATIVE DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000. AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000. TO MAKE THIS STOP. IT'S HARD ON ME BECAUSE I HAVE A MENTAL DISABILITY AND WORRY ABOUT MY ANIMALS.
SIGNED THIS 14 DAY OF June 2010.
Franh Newsome
SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF
Exhibit
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COYRT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
FRANK NEWSOME, PLAINTIFF VERSUS CASE NO. DEPUTY LEMASTERS, ET. AL. DEFENDADANTSMOTION FOR THE RECUSAL OF CHEIF JUDGE SUSAN DLOTT
COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE AND MOVES THE COURT FOR THE RECUSAL OF CHEIF JUDGE SUSAN DLOTT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:1. A FALSE TARGET LETTER WAS SENT TO ME JULY 17, 1996 SEE EXHIBIT A. PLAINTIFF FILED A LAWSUI T AGAINST ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO, SARGUS, U.S. ATTORNEY AND CHEMAS ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY ALL THREE DEMOCRATES. PLAINTIFF HAD WAITED NEAR 6 MONTHS FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY TO ACT ON TARGET LETTER AND FILED A MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT TO ACT, AND THEY NEVER.
2. AT THE SAME TIME I FILED S UIT AGAINST MONTGOMERY COUNTY DETECTIVE SCMIDT AND SOUTHSIDE HONDA. AT PREHEARING CONFERENCE U.S. MAGISTRATE MICHEAL MERZ ASKED ME TWICE ARE YOU ON A XXX AN N.C.I.C. AND TOLD ME HE WAS GOING TO GET ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY CHEMAS ON THE BALL REFERRING TO FALSE TARGET LETTER. CASE NO. 96-321. IT SHOULD BE NOTED DURING THE CONFERENCE THERE WAS NO STENOGRAPHER PRESENT. JUST ATTORNEY TURNER, REPRESENTING LAWEN MISSING TEXT FORCMENT AND ATTORNEY RICHARD TRAUTMAN OF CINCINATTI REPRESENTING SOUTHSIDE HONDA. THERE WAS A FALSE POLICE REPORT BY LISA AMBERGEY WHO WAS FIRED BY HONDA FOR MAKING IT. DETECTIVE SCHMIDT FAILED TO SEND CONTRACTS TO PROSECUTORS OFFICE AND GEORGE PETRICFF, MATT HECK, BOTH DEMOCRATES TOOK IT TO A GRAND JUBY AND GOT AN INDICTMENT. A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. MAGISTRATE MERZ RCOMMENDED CASES C 3 96 474 and M 3 96 33 be dismissed MERZ A REQISTERED REPUBLICAN, ELECTED UNDER DEMOCRATIC FLAG WAS APPLYING LAW TO SHOW FAVORTISM TO DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECAUSE THEY ELECTED HIM. MERZ BIGGEST SUPPORTERS BEING ELECTED RICES MAGISTRATE WAS MATTHECK AND PROSECUTORS OFFICE DEMOCRATES AND HE NEEDED THEIR SUPPORT FOR REELECTION. SEE EXHIBIT B, ENTRY 49. PROSECUTORS OFFICE WAS NOT A DEFENDANT IN CASE. SEE ALSO JUDGE DLOTTS ORDER OF DISMISSAL EXHIBIT C. JUDGE DLOTT IS A DEMOCRATE AND WAS ALSO SHOWING FAVORTISM TO RENO, SARGUS, CHEMAS. PLAINTIFF WAS FALSELY ARRESTED AND FALSELY CONFINED FOR TWO DAYS. ATTORNEYS WOULD NOT SETTLE BECAUSE ALL OF THE FAVORTISM MERZ WAS SHOWING. NOT NEUTRAL.
3. ON OR ABOUT 2004 JUDGE DLOTT RULED AGAINST THEN PRESIDENT BUSH IN THIS REELECTION BID AND THE SITH CIRCUIT OVERTURNED IT. BUSH A REPUBLICAN AND DLOTT A DEMOCRATE. DLOTT SHOWING FAVORTISM TO A POLITICAL PARTY, DEMOCRATES JUDGE DLOTT CONSPIRES WITH OTHER DEMOCRATES TO SHOW FAVORTISM. JUDGE DLOTT KNOWS PLAINTIFF HAS SUED JUDGE RICE, MERZ, PORTUNE, MCCOMAS, CHERYL MCHENRY, AND COX COMMUNICATION ALL DEMOCRATES.
3. IT SHOULD BE NOTED MICHEAL MERZ WAS TAKEN TO DEMOCRATIC PARTY BY ATTORNEY DWIGHT BRANN MISSING TEXT MERZ WHO HEADED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AT THAT TIME IN DAYTON OHIO AND EXPECTED FAVORTISM. AS A MUNICIPLE COURT JUDGE SIGNED ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANTS ON A GRAND SCALE WITH DETECTIVE BRUCE MAYS AND OTHER DETECTIVES AND JOSE LOPEZ OF TROY OHIO WAS APPOINTED SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OF THE JUDGES IN DAYTON OHIO, AN ATTORNEY. THE JUDGES TOOK REPRISALS AGAINST HIS LEGAL PRACTICE AND HE RESIGNED NOTHING WAS DONE. 384 U.S. 563 583
REASONS FOR GRANTING RELIEF SEE UNITED STATES V. GRINNELL CORP. , (1966). IF A JUDGE SHOWS DEEP SEATED FAVORTISM OR ANTAGONISM THAT WOULD MAKE FAIR JUDGEMENT IMPOSSIBLE. WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS THIS COURT DO THE HONORABLE AND RECUSE ITSELF TO PREVENT FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF PLAINTIFF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LITIGATION THAT THE COURTS DO NOT NEED. THE MENTAL ANGUISH IS SOMETIMES UNBEARABLE TO PLAINTIFF. THIS WILL ALSO SPARE THE PLAINTIFF THE POLITICAL, BIASED, AND PREJUDICIAL BEHAVIOR. FRANK NEWSOME FRANK NEWSOME NOTE THERE ARE NEAR 80 MILLION PEOPLE WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY IN THIS COUNTRY. THERE ARE 6% GAYS AND ON OR ABOUT 30% bLACKS WHO HAVE MORE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAN THAN THE MENTALLY DISABLED. DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THIS CIRCUIT. JUDGE BERTLESMAN FOUND IN 04-211 CASE NEW SOME V. SCHENCKS PLAINTIFF HAD A MENTAL DISABILITY.MATT HECK AND HIS ASST PROSECUTOR WERE RECENTLY CONVICTED OF HATCH ACT BY GOVERNMENT. DAYTON POLICE DEPT. AND FIRE DEPT WERE RECENLTY FOUND GUILTY OF HIRING PRACTICES AGAINST MINORITIES BY THE GOVERNMENT.
ALSO PLAINTIFF HAD TO FILE A MANDAMUS AGAINST DLOTT FOR USURPTION OF THE BENCH IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT TO CORRECT IT. AND IT WAS CORRECTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.
EXIBIT (A.)
July 17, 1996
Frank Newsome
2921 S. Charleston Rd.
South Charleston, OH 45368
Re: 18 U.S.C. § 2314
Dear Mr. Newsome:
This is to advise you that this office intends to initiate criminal proceedings against you in United States District Court regarding interstate transportation of stolen property. Please have your lawyer contact me within 20 days, whether the lawyer is appointed or retained. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may contact the Pretrial Services Officer at Room 613A, Federal Building, 200 West Second Street, Dayton, Ohio (telephone 225-2992) to complete a financial affidavit and determine if you quality for an appointed lawyer.
Very truly yours, EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY J. RICHARD CHEMA J. RICHARD CHEMA Assistant U.S. Attorney EAS:JRC:ges cc: United States Magistrate Judge, Dayton, Ohio Pretrial Services Officer, Dayton, Ohio T. Burkey, FBI, Dayton, OhioEXIBIT (B.)
MISSING TEXTeedings include all events. TERMED APPEAL MISSING TEXT6cv321 Newsome v. Southside Honda, et al CONMAG MISSING TEXT/97 40 ANSWER by defendant David D Hicks; jury demand (no pgs: 5) (eo) MISSING TEXT/97 41 LAY Witness list submitted by defendant Southside Honda ( no pgs: 4) (eo) MISSING TEXT0/97 42 RESPONSE by plaintiff Frank Newsome to answer to amended complaint [40-1] (no pgs: 6) (gb) MISSING TEXT0/97 43 REQUEST by plaintiff Frank Newsome for answers to interrogatories (no pgs: 4) (gb) MISSING TEXT0/97 44 REQUEST by plaintiff Frank Newsome for answers to interrogatories (no pgs: 4) (gb) MISSING TEXT1/97 45 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to Plaintiffs motion for State Grand Jury Minutes [37-1] (no pgs: 2) (jt) MISSING TEXT1/97 46 ORDER by Mag. Judge Michael Merz striking notice [39-1], striking response [42-1], striking request [43-1], striking request [44-1] plaintiff instructed not to send copies to Magistrate Judge (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 1) (jt) MISSING TEXT20/97 47 REPLY by plaintiff Frank Newsome to response to motion for order for State Grand Jury Minutes Filed In-Camera [37-1] (no pgs: 3) (jt) MISSING TEXT21/97 48 MOTION by defendant David D Hicks, defendant Robert Schmidt to extend time to serve requests for admission unitl 3/14/97 (no pgs: 3) (jt) MISSING TEXT24/97 — NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Michael Merz granting motion to extend time to serve requests for admission unitl 3/14/97 [48-1] (cc: all counsel) (jt) MISSING TEXT24/97 49 ORDER/Notice of Pendency of Motion that Montgomery County Accordingly invited if they wish to file a memorandum on whether the grand jury proceedings should be disclosed until 3/17/97 by Mag. Judge Michael Merz (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 2) (jt) [Edit date 02/25/97] MISSING TEXT0/97 50 RESPONSE to invitation of this Court in its Notice of Pendency of Motion regarding State Grand Jury Minutes [49-1] by Montgomery County (no pgs: 3) (eo) MISSING TEXT24/97 51 RESPONSE by plaintiff Frank Newsome to order [49-1] (no pags: 5) (gb) MISSING TEXT28/97 52 MOTION by plaintiff Frank Newsome to compel discovery (no pgs: 6) (jt) MISSING TEXT31/97 53 MOTION by plaintiff Frank Newsome to compel discovery ( no pgs: 4) (re)EXIBIT (C.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION FRANK NEWSOME, : Case No. C-3-96-474 : M-3-96-33 : District Judge Susan J. Dlott Plaintiff : : v. : Partisan to a group : Democrates. Dlott is JANET RENO, et al, : a clemocrate, Favortism : Defendants :ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the United States Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to such reference the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court findings of Fact and Recommendations for Disposition. Subsequently plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation.The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the magistrate and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing the Court does determine that such Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly the petition and complaint are DISMISSED as frivolous.
It is further ordered that based upon the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, an appeal would not be taken in good faith and that the pauper status of the plaintiff is hereby REVOKED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.Susan J. Dlott
Susan J. Dlott United States District Judge Date: 1/6/97She is a Democrate
I had to File a Mandamus against her because one of the cases was before Rice and Morz moved both cases before Dloff.She does not like me She is now the Chief Judge and projudle against me. Merz and Dloff Conspiring.
March 4, 2004
Scott Thompson
2921 S. Charleston Rd.
S. Charleston, OH 45368
Dear Mr. Thompson:
On March 3, 2004, there was an incident involving you and an individual where threats were allegedly made. Menacing charges have been requested against you. Menacing is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree and is punishable by a maximum sentence of 30 days imprisonment and/or a $250.00 fine.
I am not going to grant criminal charges against you at this time. However, I strongly urge you not to have contact with Frank Newsome. If there is another incident, I will approve criminal charges.
If you have any questions, please contact this office at 376-7303.
Very truly yours,
_______________
Ronald C. Lewis
Prosecutor
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
FRAN K NB NEWSOME, PLAINTIFF VERSUS CASE NO. DEPUTY SHERIFF LEMASTERS, ET. AL. DEFENDANTSMOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF AND MOVES THE COURT FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:1. PLAINTIFF HAS A MENTAL DISABILITY TO GET DISORGANIZED AND FORGET. IN 04-211 CASE JUDGE BERTLESMAN FOUND IT TO BE TRUE. I WAS IN AN ACCIDENT ON OR ABOUT 1992.
2. I AM RECIEVING $600. A MONTH AND THERE IS NO WAY I CAN AFFORD AN ATTORNEY. AND I HAVE RELENTLESSLY TRIED TO GET AN ATTORNEY TO TAKE CASES SINCE 1996. WITHOUT SUCC ESS.
3. I WILL BE DENIED ACCESS TO THE COURTS IF DENIED AN ATTORNEY BECAUSE THAT IS JUDGE BERTLESMA NS ORDER TO PROTECT MY RIGHTS. SOME TIMES I DO WELL AND SOMETIMES I DO NOT.
WH EREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS THE COURT GRANT HIM THIS REQUEST
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, FRANK NEWSOME DATED: 7/19/2010 FRANK NEWSOMEAFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
I, Frank Newsome am the petitioner in the above-entitled case. In support of my motion to proceed in forma pauperis, I state that because of my poverty I am unable to pay the costs of this case or to give security therefor; and I believe I am entitled to redress.1. For both you and your spouse estimate the average amount of money received from each of the following sources during the past 12 months. Adjust any amount that was received weekly, biweekly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually to show the monthly rate. Use gross amounts, that is, amounts before any deductions for taxes or otherwise.
I am not married Income source Average monthly amount during Amount expected the past 12 months next month None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Social 500 Security Total monthly income: 500 500
You Spouse You Spouse Employment $ $_____ $ $_____ Self-employment $ $_____ $ $_____ Incorne formreal property $ $_____ $ $_____ (such as rental income) Interest and dividends $ $_____ $ $_____ Gifts $ $_____ $ $_____ Alimony $ $_____ $ $_____ Child Support $ $_____ $ $_____ Retirement (such as social $ $_____ $ $_____ security, pensions, annuities, insurance) Disability (such as social $ $_____ $ $_____ security, insurance payments) Unemployment payments $ $_____ $ $_____ Public-assistance $ $_____ $ $_____ (such as welfare) Other (specify). $ $_____ $_____ $_____ $ $_____ $ $_____2. List your employment history for the past two years, most recent first. (Gross monthly pay is before taxes or other deductions.)
I have not worked in last 15 years
I am not allowed to work because of a mental disability
I am not married. Employer Address Dates of Gross monthly pay Employment
_________________ _________________ _________________ $________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ $________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ $________________ 3. List your spouse's employment history for the past two years, most recent employer first. (Gross monthly pay is before taxes or other deductions.) Employer Address Dates of Gross monthly pay Employment _________________ _________________ _________________ $________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ $________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ $________________ 4. How much cash do you and your spouse have? $ NoneBelow, state any money you or your spouse have in bank accounts or in any other financial institution.None None None None
Financial institution Type of account Amount you have Amount your spouse has $ $ _________________ _________________ $________________ $_______________ _________________ _________________ $________________ $_______________ 5. List the assets, and their values, which you own or your spouse owns. Do not list clothing and ordinary household furnishings.None None None None None [] Home [] Other real estate Value Value [] Motor Vehicle #1 [] Motor Vehicle #2 Year, make model Year, make model Value ____________________ Value ____________________ [] Other assets Description Value ____________________I own no vehicles or property.
I am not marrieN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NONE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 500 N/A I live in a barn on N/A my mother's property, and help my mother. Total monthly expenses: N/A
You Your spouse Transportation (not including motor vehicle payments) $ $________ Recreation, entertainment, newspapers, magazines, etc. $ $________ Insurance (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage payments) Homeowner's or renter's $ $________ Life $ $________ Health $ $________ Motor Vehicle $ $________ Other: ____________________ $ $________ Taxes (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage payments) (specify): $ $________ Installment payments Motor Vehicle $ $________ Credit card(s) $ $________ Department store(s) $ $________ Other: $ $________ Alimony, maintenance, and support paid to others $ $________ Regular expenses for operation of business, profession, or farm (attach detailed statement) $ $________ Other (specify): $ $________ $ $________ N/A N/a 9. Do you expect any major changes to your monthly income or expenses or in your assets or liabilities during the next 12 months? [] Yes [xx] No If yes, describe on an attached sheet. 10. Have you paid — or will you be paying — an attorney any money for services in connection with this case, including the completion of this form? [] Yes [xx] No If yes, how much? If yes, state the attorney's name, address, and telephone number: N/A 11. Have you paid — or will you be paying — anyone other than an attorney (such as a paralegal or a typist) any money for services in connection with this case, including the completion of this form? [] Yes [xx] No If yes, how much? If yes, state the person's name, address, and telephone number: N/A 12. Provide any other information that will help explain why you cannot pay the costs of this case. I RECIEVE A DISABILITY CHECK. I W AS IN AN ACCIDENT, $600, a month I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.July 19, 10 Frank Newsome Executed on: 20 (Signature) Exhibit