Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-1656-A.
October 24, 2007
ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff Jonathan Lee Riches' self-styled "Motion for Clarification" (attached as Exhibit 1 and not accepted for filing), seeking further explanation of our October 4, 2007 order. In the interest of transparency, and because this is the first document by the plaintiff we have seen that is not patently ludicrous, we explain and refine the order.
Mr. Riches, as noted in our October 4 order and as demonstrated in the attachment thereto, has made a hobby of filing suits in federal court during his incarceration. The suits conform to the following template:
(1) Name as plaintiff the first thing that comes to mind. (It need not be a juridical person; an abstract concept will do.)
(2) Using free association, string together incoherent paragraphs to form a complaint.
(3) Wait for the inevitable dismissal of the complaint as frivolous or otherwise.
Mr. Riches' complaints have already been dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or § 1915A in the following cases: Riches v. Craig, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75090, 2007 WL 2964256 (D. Del. 2007); Riches v. Peterson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76477, 2007 WL 2900401 (D. Cal. 2007); Riches v. Schiavo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68827, 2007 WL 2729681 (D. Fla. 2007); Riches v. Williams, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67446 (D. Va. 2007); and Riches v. Swartz, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58918, 2007 WL 2319819 (D. Va. 2007). Furthermore, a magistrate judge has recommended dismissal of the complaint as frivolous (though the current status is not clear) in the following cases: Riches v. Newdow, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77609, 2007 WL 3046051 (D. Cal. 2007); Riches v. Rudolph, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77867, 2007 WL 3053312 (D. Cal. 2007); Riches v. Weaver, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76335 (D. Cal. 2007); Riches v. Kaczynski, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75040 (D. Cal. 2007); and Riches v. Gov't Snitches Informants, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60031 (D. Fla. 2007).
The joke, we must admit, is at first mildly amusing, but it grows tedious in the retelling. It is too predictable and too tired; more important, it is a drain on the judicial system. The time spent simply disposing of Mr. Riches' frivolous complaints takes away from other, more productive, work.
We are reminded of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," although, given the nonsensical nature of Mr. Riches' complaints, it would be more appropriately entitled "The Boy Who Cried Jabberwocky." To flood the Courts with indisputably frivolous complaints like the one dismissed in this case weakens his credibility in any future non-frivolous case he might bring. Mr. Riches is advised to observe a moment of silent reflection before submitting any more of these frivolous suits.
We recognize Mr. Riches' constitutional right to be heard, but that right extends only to non-frivolous complaints. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. Based on Mr. Riches' history of frivolous lawsuits and to prevent widespread attention when they are docketed and made public, the Court will henceforth screen anything from Mr. Riches with utmost vigilance and allow only non-frivolous claims to be docketed. In order to balance the Court's interest in controlling its docket against Mr. Riches' right to be heard in non-frivolous suits,
Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A):
(a) Screening. The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal. On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint —
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or * * *Id. (emphasis added).
IT IS ORDERED that Jonathan Lee Riches is barred from making any further filings in the Western District of Louisiana without first obtaining permission of the Court. In the event Mr. Riches attempts to file ANYTHING in this district without proof of the Court's permission, the Clerk is directed to discard it and not accept it for filing, effective immediately. This ruling is not conditioned on whether the suit is in forma pauperis or paid in full. The rule and requirement herein is the same in either case.
Exhibit