Opinion
No. 1:13-cv-351-TWP-TAB
11-22-2013
KEITH JUDD, Plaintiff, v. OBAMA, et al., Defendants.
Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
The grant of the plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is rescinded because the plaintiff was ineligible for that status.
The plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt 3] is denied. The reason for this ruling is that he is not eligible for that status, as explained below:
Plaintiff has had at least three non-habeas civil actions or appeals previously dismissed as frivolous or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. He has been denied in forma pauperis status in numerous federal district courts, circuit courts, and the United States Supreme Court. See e.g., Judd v. United States Dist. Ct. For W. Dist. Of Tex., 528 U.S. 5, 5 (1999) (finding that Judd had filed twelve petitions for certiorari which were denied as frivolous and that "Judd had abused this Court's certiorari and extraordinary writ processes."); Judd v. Barrack Obama, et al., No. 08-CV-0093 (E.D.Tex Feb 25, 2010) (dismissed as frivolous); Judd v. U.S. District Court, Appeal No. 98-51119 (5th Cir. April 16, 1999) (appeal dismissed as frivolous); Judd v. Lappin, No. 04-5337, 2004 WL 3019537 (D.C.Cir. Dec. 30, 2004) (per curiam) (unreported) (finding that Judd had incurred three strikes); Judd v. University of New Mexico, 204 F.3d 1041, 1044 (10th Cir. 2000) ("Mr. Judd is enjoined from proceeding as an appellant or petitioner without the representation of a licensed attorney admitted to practice in this court, unless he first obtains permission to proceed pro se."); Judd v. Fergeson, 239 F.Supp.2d 442, 443 (D.N.J. 2002) (noting the multitude of federal cases Judd has filed that have been dismissed as frivolous.).Judd v. Obama, 2013 WL 5724045, *2 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 21, 2013). Sadly for the federal judiciary, many comparable chronicles can be found in the reported cases. See, e.g., Judd v. Fox, 289 Fed. Appx. 795-96 (5th Cir. 2008); In re Judd, 240 Fed. Appx. 981, 982 (3rd Cir. 2007); Judd v. United States, 2006 WL 1565084, at *1 (C.A.D.C. 2006); Judd v. University of New Mexico, 204 F.3d 1041 (10th Cir. 2000); Judd v. Furgeson, 2012 WL 5451273 (D.N.J. Nov. 5, 2012); Judd v. United States, 2010 WL 1904869 (D.Mass. 2010); Judd v. State Bd. of Elections of Maryland, 2011 WL 2413513 (D. Md. June 10, 2011).
Judd's amended complaint fails to survive the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) because it is frivolous, beyond curative amendment. Grinols v. Electoral College, 2013 WL 2294885 (E.D.Cal. May 23, 2013). Dismissal of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b) is therefore mandatory. Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002).
II.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution: Keith Judd
#11593-051
Texarkana FCI
P.O. Box 7000
Texarkana, TX 75505