Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 03-5112
November 6, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis accompanied by a Complaint and six styled Motions ("Motions") filed by pro se Plaintiff Leslie Ann Kelly ("Plaintiff"). Plaintiff's handwritten Complaint appears to claim that Defendants, a "Lieutinant [sic] Walker" of the Philadelphia Police Department and Brenda Fraser, Esquire ("Eraser"), (collectively, the "Defendants"), are conspiring to withhold Plaintiff's stolen property. Plaintiff categorized this claim as a civil rights matter on the Designation Form, used by the Clerk of Court ("Clerk") to assign cases to the appropriate calender. However, Plaintiff failed to allege any civil rights violation in her Complaint, Motions and memoranda mailed to the Court thereafter.
The Motions dated September 19, October 6, 14, 17, 30, and 31, 2003 appear to request, as we can best comprehend, inter alia, the following: (1) that "Officer Alexander" be joined as a defendant for extorting Plaintiff's grant money and jewelry from a district judge the officer was allegedly having an affair with; (2) that Plaintiff's allegedly stolen camera be returned, and that the Mormon Church be questioned about their involvement in withholding her stolen property; (3) that Linda Clinton be joined as a "criminal" defendant for convincing Mayor John Street and federal judges to give her Plaintiff's belongings by having affairs with them; (4) that Defendant Fraser stop attempts to involve Plaintiff in a prostitution sting; (5) that a special investigator be assigned to Plaintiff's case because of the "use of prostitution" by the United States Attorney's Offices to "embarrass judges" into obstructing justice; and (6) that the Court find Plaintiff competent.
For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is GRANTED and her Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
A. In Forma Pauperis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a court can allow a litigant to proceed without the prepayment of the required filing fee upon a showing of indigence. Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 n. 5 (3rd Cir. 1995). This Court follows the two-prong test set forth in Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1990), to evaluate Plaintiff's Complaint and Motions. First, "the district court evaluates a litigant's financial status and determines whether (she) is eligible to proceed. . . ." Id. at 194 n. 1. Second, "the court assesses the complaint under [ § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)] to determine whether it is frivolous." Id.
After reviewing Plaintiff's application, it is clear that she qualifies as indigent. Plaintiff indicates on the Designation Form that her income from self-employment as a poet totals $600.00 annually and her income from gifts is $1500.00 annually. Plaintiff also contends that she owns no valuable property. The Court believes Plaintiff's financial averments to be true and, therefore, finds that Plaintiff qualifies as indigent. Thus, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED.
B. Plaintiff's Complaint
Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A claim is frivolous when "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact," Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), or the claims describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios."Id. at 328. Under this standard, a claim is appropriately dismissed as frivolous when it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the contentions made are clearly baseless. Deutsch, 67 F.3d at 1085.
Plaintiff's Complaint appears to state that the Defendants conspired to withhold her allegedly stolen property. Though Plaintiff fails to state what property she is referring to in her Complaint, her subsequent Motions and correspondence to this Court allude to such items as grant money, teaching appointments, cruise tickets, a camera, food, jewelry, clothing, government positions, and a three million dollar home. Further, Plaintiff claims that the Defendants are involved in an illicit affair, an accusation she makes of every other defendant she subsequently moves to join, and are conspiring to "get rid of [her]." (Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff also seems to allege, although it is not clear from her muddled description of the facts, that the Defendants are withholding her property in retaliation for her prior suit against them for attempting, fraudulently, to commit her to a mental institute in the years 2000 and 2002.
There is no record of this previous suit in this Court.
Plaintiff's allegations do not support her claim of a civil rights violation, and, instead, her allegations appear entirely baseless in fact and better qualify as "fanciful or delusional scenarios." See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at 327. Because Plaintiff's pro se Complaint contains insufficient factual support and even the most liberal reading of her Complaint fails to support a meritorious legal theory for this action, we find that it is frivolous and warrants dismissal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is FURTHERED ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions subsequently submitted to this Court are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
C. All Writs Injunction
In considering whether to enjoin Plaintiffs further filings, this Court is mindful that judicially-imposed restrictions on an individual's access to the courts constitute an extraordinary remedy for the filing of frivolous suits. The Court is especially conscious of Plaintiff's pro se status and has accorded the particular caution and leeway necessary in these circumstances. See In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 445 (3d Cir. 1982). A review of Plaintiff's prior filings and correspondence with this Court reveal her vexatious abuse of the judicial process warranting this extraordinary remedy.
In relation to the present action, Plaintiff filed six styled Motions as well as eleven letters mailed to the Court, between September 9, 2003 and October 31, 2003. In Plaintiff's handwritten letters, she makes numerous requests for money from the Catholic and Mormon churches, the Justice Department and the University of Pennsylvania, to name a few. Plaintiff frequently writes to proclaim her "virtue," claiming that numerous individuals are conspiring to take her virtue. Plaintiff wrote the Court demanding a Lincoln Navigator, and teaching positions in the fields of law, medicine and dentistry. Plaintiff accuses federal judges of having illicit affairs, and denying her justice because she remains "virtuous" and will not submit to their advances. Almost every day or night Plaintiff will leave lengthy, often beyond the Court's telephone answering system's two-minute cut-off mark, unintelligible voice mail messages with this Court's chambers ("Chambers"), habitually marked by Plaintiff as both priority and private, seeming to make more demands for relief.
Date Content Writing
1 9/17/03 Plaintiff requests a trust fund to hold all of Letter her stolen grant money.
2 9/18/03 Plaintiff requests a Lincoln Navigator. Letter
3 9/18/03 Plaintiff charges for her lost beads and broken Bill arm hanger.
4 9/19/03 See supra text accompanyina note 1. Motion
5 9/22/03 Plaintiff requests a three million dollar home, Letter accuses district judges of spending her money "on ladies . . . they know socially, " and another judge of propositioning her for sex.
6 9/24/03 Plaintiff requests that her real estate agent Letter serve as her trustee for a seemingly fictitious trust fund and informs the Court that she contacted the FBI regarding judges' activities with a named defendant.
7 9/26/03 Plaintiff argues that priests could not be Letter witnesses for her because the Catholic Church gave her shoes that resulted in a bunion problem.
8 10/02/03 Plaintiff argues that the malfunctioning of her Letter "Penn library card" evidences that the Defendants and others blackballed her in the community.
9 10/06/03 See supra text accompanying note 1. Motion
10 10/14/03 See supra text accompanying note 1. Motion
11 10/14/03 Plaintiff claims the Defendants attempted both to Letter steal her belongings and to have affairs with judges.
12 10/16/03 Plaintiff requests faculty assignments owed to Letter her or that she be hired as a Court bodyguard.
13 10/16/03 Plaintiff describes how she cared for people with — back massages and then demands money from the 10/17/03 Catholic and Mormon churches. Letter
14 10/17/03 See supra text accompanying note 1. Motion
15 10/22/03 Plaintiff lists factions that owe her money, Letter included various city officials, and again informs the Court of her virtuous character.
16 10/30/03 See supra text accompanying note 1. Motion
17 10/31/03 See supra text accompanying note 1. Motion
After leaving a telephone message, the Court's telephone answering service provides callers with the ability to either send the message for regular delivery or to send the message marked: (1) private, (2) priority, or (3) private and priority.
In the past four months, Plaintiff filed a total of four complaints in forma pauperis with this Court. At present, Plaintiff's Complaint against the Defendants is the only complaint remaining for dismissal. Along with each of the other complaints, there were also numerous letters delivered and "motions" filed that made countless demands and fanciful accusations of various individuals or entities.
Plaintiff's cases in this Court include: Kelly v. City of Philadelphia, et al., No. 03-3565 (E.D. Pa. July 7, 2003); Kelly v. Knight Ridder, No. 03-4889 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2003); Kelly v. Lieutinant Tsicl Walker, et al., No. 03-5112 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2003); and Kelly v. Nioka, No. 03-5939 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2003).
Plaintiff is currently appealing both Kelly v. City of Philadelphia, et al., No. 03-03565 (E.D. Pa. July 7, 2003), appeal docketed, No. 03-3019 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2003); and Kelly v. Knight Ridder, No. 03-4889 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2003) (Plaintiff is appealing order denying post-dismissal motions as moot).
Plaintiff filed her first complaint in this Court on June 10, 2003, Kelly v. City of Philadelphia, and the complaint was promptly dismissed as frivolous on July 7, 2003. During about a one month period, after filing the complaint, but before its dismissal, Plaintiff mailed six documents, each entitled "Motion," received by Chambers on June 20, 23, 25 and 26, 2003. On July 10, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. Then, on July 18, 2003, Plaintiff filed a motion with the Clerk's Office to provide her with a hotel room, which was dismissed by the Court as frivolous on July 22, 2003.
Plaintiff was apparently claimed that the University of Pennsylvania discriminated against her by not hiring her for a law librarian position. She included Fraser, Associate General Counsel for the University, as a defendant.
Two "motions" were received by Chambers on June 25, 2003.
Plaintiff's main request in the "motions" was for the return of her "stolen property." Plaintiff claimed that grant money and teaching positions were withheld from her by members of the community conspiring against her. She frequently claimed that Fraser is attempting to sexually harass her or commit her to a mental hospital.
Next, Plaintiff filed her second action on August 26, 2003, Kelly v. Knight Ridder, which was dismissed on September 23, 2003, for failure to set forth the grounds upon which this Court's jurisdiction depended, a concise statement of the Plaintiff's claims, and an explanation as to why Plaintiff was entitled to the relief requested against the defendant in that matter. Prior to dismissal, Plaintiff proceeded to file "motions" on August 29, September 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10, 2003. After the Court dismissed the complaint, Plaintiff continued to file five subsequent "motions" on September 29, October 8, 15, 20, and 24, 2003, which were thereafter denied by the Court as moot. Plaintiff's post-dismissal "motions" in Knight Ridder ranged from requests for the Court to order the defendant to contact her real estate agent to buy her a home, to requests for an order that the Clerk's Office hold her mail for daily retrieval.
The "motions" seemed to request, inter alia, the following: (1) a subpoena to obtain discovery regarding any monetary donations the Defendant may be withholding from her; (2) that the Defendant and any other "people" be held criminally liable for anything they may or may not have done to harm Plaintiff; (3) protection from various individuals; (4) a criminal investigation of several people; (5) that the Court provide real estate, diamonds, cruise tickets, dance lessons, and other things to Plaintiff; (6) that Plaintiff's dental and eyeglasses bills be paid; and (7) that the Court consider two poems written by Plaintiff.
Most recently, Plaintiff filed her fourth complaint, Kelly v. Nioka, on October 27, 2003, which was dismissed as frivolous on November 6, 2003. Plaintiff alleged in Kelly v. Nioka nonsensical scenarios involving Defendant Nioka who allegedly misrepresented herself to be a doctor, wiretapped Plaintiff, recovered $45,000.00 of Plaintiff's stolen money, and blackmailed judges on this Court to get money that rightfully belonged to Plaintiff. Just one day after filing the complaint, October 28, 2003, Plaintiff filed a motion to add "Quoing Schichtavy," "Bill Schichtavy," and Linda Clinton ("Clinton") as defendants, and further alleged attempted sexual improprieties somehow connected to another federal judge. It is clear from the excessive amount of past and present correspondence that without restriction from this Court Plaintiff will continue to abuse the judicial process for relief that this Court cannot give her.
These were just some of the fanciful accusations and allegations Plaintiff made in Kelly v. Nioka.
Restriction in these circumstances is provided to the courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which "enables the District Court to issue such injunctions to preclude abusive, groundless and vexatious litigation."Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 1038 (3d Cir. 1993). There are three requirements the Court must fulfill when considering this restriction. First, only in "exigent circumstances, such as a litigant's continuous abuse of the judicial process by filing meritless and repetitive actions," will a plaintiff's access to the court system be restricted.Id. Second, Plaintiff must be given notice "to show cause why the proposed injunctive relief should not issue." Id. Finally, the order must be narrowly tailored according to each case's circumstances. Id.
Plaintiff's litigious actions in this Court are clearly a continuous and vexatious abuse of the judicial process. From the start of Plaintiff's first action until now, she has telephoned, written letters and/or filed "motions," nearly every single day from June 10, 2003 until today, November 6, 2003. Plaintiff has filed a new complaint almost every month, twice including Fraser and Clinton as defendants. Although Plaintiff's complaints vary in subject matter, one theme reappears throughout each complaint, "motion," telephone message, and memorandum: an allegation that certain individuals or institutions are conspiring against her and withholding her stolen property. The facts supporting these claims are continually and completely without merit, and without restriction, Plaintiff will continue her attempts to use the federal courts to relitigate what seemingly are delusional fantasies, at an extreme cost of the Court's time and resources. Plaintiff may, at some future time, have a valid claim for which she is, in no way, barred from seeking redress in the court system.
Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), it is ORDERED that the attached All Writs Injunction ("Injunction Order") shall issue. If, after 20 days, Plaintiff does show cause as to why her continuous abuses of the process should not restrict her access to the Court, then the Court will withdraw this Injunction Order infra. However, if, after 20 days, Plaintiff cannot show cause as to why her continuous abuses of the judicial process should not restrict her access, then the Injunction Order will stand.
Because Plaintiff's claims are difficult to discern and so varied, it would be ineffective to tailor an injunction specific to Plaintiff's particular defendants or claims. See generally Nickelson v. Bush, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9092, at *12 n. 9 (E.D. Pa. July 3, 2001), aff'd, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9280 (3d Cir. Apr. 12, 2002). The nonsensical, unpredictable, and varied circumstances of Plaintiff's complaints with this Court fully warrant this Court's Injunction Order that encompasses the breadth of Plaintiff's aforementioned frivolous complaints, "motions" and frequent correspondence.
Therefore, it is FURTHER ORDERED that with Plaintiff's subsequent attempts to file papers in this Court in her capacity as a plaintiff, Plaintiff SHALL make a written showing to the Court that her suit is not frivolous or vexatious, and the Clerk SHALL first forward said papers to the Court for leave to file before the Court will direct the Clerk to file any complaints or papers. Specifically, it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff SHALL include with proposed filings a certification taken under oath stating that: (1) all claims presented have never been raised in this Court before and disposed of on the merits; (2) all facts alleged in the complaint are believed to be true by Plaintiff; and (3) Plaintiff has no knowledge or belief that her claims are for any reason "foreclosed by controlling law." Id. at 12-13. After review of the aforementioned certification and papers, the Court will refer all meritorious documents to the Clerk to be filed. As the following Injunction Order does not bar Plaintiff from seeking judicial resolution of her nonfrivolous claims, it should not place any significant hardship on Plaintiff's access to the courts.
ORDER
AND NOW, this ___ day of November, 2003, in consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Complaint (Doc. No. 1), and six styled Motions (Doc. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7), dated September 19, October 6, 14, 17, 30, and 31, 2003, it is ORDERED that:1. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
3. Plaintiff's six styled Motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT;
In consideration of Plaintiff's litigious history before this Court, it is FURTHER ORDERED that:
4. Plaintiff is hereby ENJOINED from filing further papers in this Court as a plaintiff without the Court's initial review and grant of leave to file said papers.
5. The Clerk of Court SHALL refrain from filing or causing to be filed in this Court any complaint or other paper from Plaintiff, in her capacity as a plaintiff, without first forwarding said paper to the Court for approval except for papers to appeal this Order or to notify the Court of appellate action;
6. Plaintiff SHALL include with aforementioned proposed filings a certification taken under oath stating:
a. All claims presented have never been raised in this Court before and disposed of on the merits;
b. All facts alleged in the complaint are believed to be true by Plaintiff; and
c. Plaintiff has no knowledge or belief that her claims are for any reason foreclosed by controlling law.