Opinion
Case No. CV414-154
09-24-2014
MARK ONDRICK, II, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Mark Ondrick II, proceeding pro se, has filed multiple lawsuits. As in his other cases, he moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) here. Doc. 2. He has supplied Court-mandated additional IFP data. Docs. 7, 8 & 11. Based upon his representations, the Court GRANTS his IFP motions. Docs. 2 & 11.
The right to proceed in forma pauperis in litigation in the federal district courts is provided for by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Litigants are not entitled as of right to proceed without the prepayment of a filing fee. IFP status, rather, is a privilege which may be denied when abused. The IFP statute therefore authorizes courts to dismiss cases sua sponte if: (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue, (2) the action is frivolous or malicious, (3) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (4) the complaint seeks money damages from a defendant who is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The power to dismiss sua sponte in IFP cases "is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit and because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Here, Ondrick's complaint is subject to immediate dismissal since he fails to state a claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). He evidently has been convicted of criminal trespass in state court, and he is unhappy with the bond setting process there. Somehow, it makes sense to him to deem the state court a United States court and thus sue the United States. Doc. 1 at 2 ("Name of Defendant: United States of America" [he then lists the street address for a Georgia state court]"); see also id. at 3 ("Statement of Claim: Failed constitutional laws, when state 'allowed appeal' in the old laws and remedies! Hearing to the appeal for bond was overlooked!"); id. at 5 (for "Relief" he seeks his bond money back and full acquittal of all charges against him); id. at 6 (copy of state court "Sentencing Order").
In that Ondrick's complaint is demonstrably frivolous, no further explanation is needed here; it should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 2014.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA