Opinion
Civil 3:21-CV-1239-N-BK
06-08-2021
Tyshawn Cole, Plaintiffs, v. Office of the Clerk, Defendant.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RENEE HARRIS TOLIVER JUDGE.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition where appropriate. Upon review of the relevant pleadings and applicable law, this case should be summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 28, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Tyshawn Cole, an Illinois resident, filed a complaint against the Office of the Clerk at the “U.S. Capitol, Room H154, Washington, D.C.” and in Columbus, Ohio. Doc. 3 at 2. The complaint is unsigned and largely incoherent, asserting in toto: “violation of a nearly all my foden extra to what I need to have planned accordingly. Trade fedility towards fonden extra & tregatrega.” Doc. 3 at 4 (misspelling and grammatical errors in original). Cole fails to present a cognizable claim and to the extent there are any, his factual contentions appear irrational and delusional. As such, this action should be dismissed as frivolous.
II. ANALYSIS
Because Cole did not pay the filing fee, the Court presumes that he seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As such, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute provides inter alia for the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint if the Court finds that it is frivolous or malicious. A complaint is frivolous when it is based on an indisputable meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are “clearly ‘baseless.'” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The latter category encompasses allegations that describe “fanciful, fantastic, and delusional” scenarios, or that “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33.
The Court must always liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (noting pro se pleadings “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”); Cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). Even under this most liberal construction, however, Cole has failed to state a cognizable legal claim or anything that can be construed as such. Moreover, as best the Court can decipher, any factual contentions asserted are irrational and incredible and fail to support any legal claim, seeDenton, 504 U.S. at 33. Consequently, Cole's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as factually and legally frivolous.
III. LEAVE TO AMEND
Generally “a pro se litigant should be offered an opportunity to amend his complaint before it is dismissed.” Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). However, the Court is not required to grant leave to amend “if the plaintiff has already pleaded his ‘best case.'” Id. Here, the Court concludes that Cole's claims wholly lack a rational basis. Moreover, based on the most deferential review of his complaint, it is unlikely that even if given the opportunity, Cole could allege cogent and viable legal claims. Under these circumstances, granting leave to amend would be futile and cause needless delay.
IV. SANCTION WARNING
This is Cole's seventh case in less than two years, and the previous six were all dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). As such, Cole should be warned that if he persists in filing frivolous or baseless cases, or cases that fail to state a claim, the Court may impose monetary sanctions and/or bar him from bringing any further action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(2) and (c)(1) (providing for sanctions against pro se litigants or attorneys). Sanctions may be appropriate when a pro se litigant has a history of submitting multiple frivolous claims. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195-97 (5th Cir. 1993). Pro se litigants have “no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986). Moreover, litigants who abuse the judicial process are “not entitled to sue and appeal without paying the normal filing fees -- indeed, are not entitled to sue and appeal, period.” Freev. United States, 879 F.2d 1535, 1536 (7th Cir. 1989).
A review of PACER reflects that in 2019, Cole filed six cases that were dismissed as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Cole v. Grizzly, No. 2:2019cv02084 (C.D. Ill. May 8, 2019); Cole v. Riverside Hospital, No. 2:2019cv02121 (C.D. Ill. May 8, 2019); Cole v. IRS, No. 2:2019cv02043 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2019); Cole v. ICE Building, et al., No. 2:2019cv02122 (C.D. Ill. May 8, 2019); Cole v. Pritzer, No. 1:2019cv00663 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 25, 2019); Cole v. Tee Grizzly, et al., No. 1:2019cv00607 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 8, 2020).
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Cole's action should be summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In addition, Cole should be WARNED that if he persists in filing frivolous or baseless actions, or cases in which he fails to state a claim, the Court may impose monetary sanctions and/or bar him from filing any future lawsuits (with or without payment of the filing fees), unless he first obtains the permission of the Court to do so.
SO RECOMMENDED.