Opinion
21-CV-0695 (ECT/KMM)
03-22-2021
Scott Lawrence Simmons, Plaintiff, v. Clerk of Appellate Courts and Dakota County District Court, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Katherine Menendez United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Scott Lawrence Simmons previously brought an action in this District against the Clerk of Appellate Courts and the Dakota County District Court alleging only the words “obstruction of justice, ” over and over. See Simmons v. Clerk of Appellate Courts, No. 20-CV-2646 (ADM/LIB) (D. Minn.). That action was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) prior to service for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Mr. Simmons now returns to federal court with a substantively identical pleading brought against the same defendants.
The result in this matter should be the same. Mr. Simmons has again applied for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status, thereby making this case amenable to preservice review pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). Once again, Mr. Simmons has included no substantive allegations whatsoever in his pleading other than the repeated words “obstruction of justice.” Compl. at 3, 4, 8-11 [ECF No. 1]. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” but the allegations in Mr. Simmons's pleading are far too minimal to put either the defendants or the Court on notice of the specific claims being raised in this litigation. At the most basic level, there is no way of knowing from the pleading why Mr. Simmons believes either of the defendants obstructed justice or otherwise acted unlawfully.
Accordingly, it is therefore recommended that this matter, like the previous matter, be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) and that Mr. Simmons's IFP application be denied. One additional matter merits further comment: Although all litigants have the right of access to the courts, that right does not extend to the filing of frivolous or needlessly duplicative litigation. See In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293 (8th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Mr. Simmons is warned that the repeated filing of pleadings bearing little to no substantive information may result in restrictions being imposed upon his ability to proceed without either assistance of counsel or advance permission of an officer of this Court.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. This matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2. The application to proceed in forma pauperis of plaintiff Scott Lawrence Simmons [ECF No. 2] be DENIED.