Riches v. Pitt

Full title: JONATHON LEE RICHES, Plaintiff, v. BRAD PITT, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Nov 28, 2007

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-14615 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 28, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-14615.

November 28, 2007

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DONALD SCHEER, Magistrate Judge

I. RECOMMENDATION :

I recommend that the Complaint be summarily dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

II. REPORT :

A. Procedural History

Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor submitted a request for leave to file a complaint in forma pauperis, his handwritten Complaint was filed on October 29, 2007. On November 19, 2007, the assigned district judge referred the case to the magistrate judge for all pretrial purposes.

B. Factual History

The Complaint alleges that Defendants Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, both well known actors, and their four minor children conspired among themselves and with others to kidnap, enslave and abuse Madeleine McCann, a child of British nationality, whose disappearance has been the subject of substantial public discussion over the past several months. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants abducted the child from her parent's hotel room in Portugal, and that they have transported her to Dearborn, Michigan, where she is currently being held against her will. Plaintiff seeks a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the adult Defendants from adopting any more children, and an Order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 64 directing Defendants to return McCann to her family. Plaintiff further seeks $750,000,000.00 in damages from the Defendants, as well as the deportation of the minor Defendants. He further prays for the entry of a restraining order to stop international kidnaping, and moves to detain Defendants for questioning in connection with the mistreatment of himself as well as the McCann kidnaping.¹ C. Analysis

1 Plaintiff maintains that he "is not being fed by Defendants."

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) provides that "[w]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action."

Article III of the Constitution confines federal courts to adjudicating actual "cases" or "controversies." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). The constitutional requirement is that the "plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Id. at 751, 104 S.Ct. At 3324. This "injury in fact" requirement mandates that the party allege "`such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy' as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2205, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 196, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962)). As the Allen court noted, this constitutional component has not been precisely defined but requires an allegation that the injury is "distinct and palpable," and "not `abstract' or `conjectural' or `hypothetical.'"

Associated Builders Contractors v. Perry, 16 F.3d 688, 690-91 (6^th Cir. 1994).

A party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the standing elements of (1) "injury in fact," (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992);Kardules v. City of Columbus, 95 F.3d 1335, 1346 (6^th Cir. 1996). Standing is an "essential and unchanging part of the case or controversy requirement of Article III." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. The party seeking entrance to a federal judicial forum bears the burden of asserting facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 518 (1975). Ordinarily, a party may not rely on the rights or interests of third parties to establish standing.Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 129 (2004); Warth, 422 U.S. at 499.

The bizarre factual assertions of Plaintiff's Complaint, in the main, accuse the Defendants of various forms of criminal conduct directed against the person of Madeleine McCann. The crimes alleged include kidnaping, child abuse, identification and passport fraud, conspiracy, assault, stalking, harassment and identity theft. To the extent that such offenses occurred outside the jurisdictional limits of the United States, they lie beyond the adjudicative authority of this court. Even to the extent that Plaintiff alleges violations of United States criminal law, his Complaint raises no justiciable issue. A private citizen has no authority to initiate a federal criminal prosecution of another person for alleged unlawful acts. See Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64-65 (1986). A private citizen simply lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another.

Although the law of standing has been greatly changed in the last ten years, we have steadfastly adhered to the requirement that, at least in the absence of a statute expressly conferring standing, federal plaintiffs must allege some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action before a federal court may assume jurisdiction.

Linda R.S. v. Richard D. and Texas, et al., 410 U.S. 614, 617 (1973). In the case at bar, Plaintiff has made no showing of a direct nexus between the vindication of his interests and the enforcement of criminal laws relating to the Defendants alleged conduct toward McCann. Under such circumstances, dismissal of the action for want of standing is required.

The only allegation in the Complaint suggesting an injury to Plaintiff's own interests is his statement that "Plaintiff is not being fed by Defendants." The Complaint does not reveal whether the assertion is intended to state a civil rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or some other form of common law tort. In either event, the claim is patently frivolous. The Defendants, motion picture actors and their minor children, are manifestly not state actors, as would be essential to a § 1983 claim. Nor is there any conceivable basis upon which to infer any common law or statutory duty whatsoever on their part to provide nourishment to the Plaintiff. The burden of proving jurisdiction lies with the Plaintiff. Moir v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, 895 F.2d 1266 (6^th Cir. 1990). A district court may, at any time, dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) "when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, insubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion." Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6^th Cir. 1999). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). "A complaint lacks an arguable or rational basis in law `if it is based on legal theories that are indisputably meritless.'" Abner v. SBC, 86 F.Appx. 958 (6<sup>th</sup> Cir. 2004) (quoting Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6<sup>th</sup> Cir. 2000)). "A complaint lacks an arguable or rational basis in fact if it describes `fantastic or delusional scenarios.'" Abner, 86 F.Appx. at 958 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28). In my view, a Complaint by an imprisoned convict premised on the theory that movie actors and their minor children have failed to see to his dietary needs meets the standard necessary to warrant dismissal as a frivolous claim.²

2 Even if it were otherwise, venue would lie in South Carolina, where Plaintiff is confined and the alleged acts of deprivation occurred. There is nothing in this record to suggest that any Defendant resides in this judicial district, or that this court is otherwise the appropriate forum to hear Plaintiff's case.

It should be noted that this Plaintiff has filed at least 148 civil suits in various federal courts throughout the country. (See Exhibit 1). Many of his cases have been dismissed as frivolous or insubstantial claims. (See Exhibit 2). Whether Plaintiff's habitual filing of groundless lawsuits stems from unsoundness of mind, malicious intent to disrupt the legal system or some other etiology, he should not be permitted to burden the court with baseless claims. I recommend that the Complaint be summarily dismissed, with prejudice. I would further recommend that the court consider a local rule prohibiting the filing of any complaint as to which a plaintiff has failed to: (a) pay the filing fee, or (b) submit a properly completed IFP Application.³ I suspect that Plaintiff's recreational litigation habit is fostered by his ability to file complaints without scrutiny or expense.

3 As Plaintiff has already had three civil rights complaints dismissed as frivolous, any future IFP actions would be subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Exhibit B-6.

III. NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS :

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to act within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981), Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991). Filing of objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987), Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

Within ten (10) days of service of any objecting party's timely filed objections, the opposing party may file a response. The response shall not be more than five (5) pages in length unless by motion and order such page limit is extended by the Court. The response shall address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue contained within the objections.

EXHIBIT A

U.S. Party/Case Index All Types Name Search Results 148 Total Party matches for selection RICHES, JONATHAN for ALL COURTS Search Complete Wed Nov 21 08:25:24 2007 Selections 1 through 54 (Page 1) Download (3 pages $ 0.16) Next 54 Civil Cases Name Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed ilndce 1:2006cv00978 miedce 2:2007cv14477 miedce 5:2007cv14528 miedce 2:2007cv14615 flmdce 2:2007mc00033 lawdce 1:2007mc00034 wydce 2:2006cv00081 medce 2:2007cv00124 kywdce 4:2007cv00129 wvndce 1:2007cv00130 flndce 1:2007cv00150 gamdce 4:2007cv00152 gamdce 4:2007cv00159 medce 2:2007cv00169 gamdce 1:2007cv00176 kywdce 5:2007cv00176 scdce 6:2006cv00194 nhdce 1:2007fp00212 wydce 2:2007cv00253 pawdce 1:2007cv00255 okedce 6:2007cv00292 nvdce 2:2006cv00293 nhdce 1:2007fp00329 txwdce 6:2007cv00330 nhdce 1:2007fp00344 iasdce 4:2007cv00369 inndce 3:2007cv00375 kywdce 3:2007cv00376 flmdce 5:2007cv00376 vawdce 7:2007cv00379 ncwdce 3:2007cv00384 nedce 8:2007cv00388 flndce 4:2007cv00408 vawdce 7:2007cv00427 vaedce 3:2007cv00434 scdce 4:2006cv00442 nvdce 3:2007cv00478 iasdce 4:2007cv00485 vawdce 7:2007cv00499 dedce 1:2007cv00538 vaedce 3:2007cv00594 vaedce 3:2007cv00606 txndce 4:2007cv00616 flmdce 2:2007cv00619 vaedce 3:2007cv00632 aredce 4:2007cv00780 nmdce 6:2007cv00843 txwdce 5:2007cv00863 flmdce 3:2007cv00893 paedce 2:2006cv01055 okwdce 5:2007cv01066 pawdce 2:2007cv01237 nvdce 2:2007cv01282 nvdce 2:2007cv01331 Next 54 PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt PACER Client Code: Login: Description: Search Criteria: Billable Cost: Pages: U.S. Party/Case Index — Home Search: All Court Types Appellate Bankruptcy Civil Criminal Reports: Court Code List Date Range Courts not on Index Statistical Reports User Options: Change Client Code New Login Billing History PSC Home Page E-Mail PSC Logout Help • 1 RICHES, JONATHAN 02/22/2006 550 04/19/2006 2 RICHES, JONATHAN 10/22/2007 550 3 RICHES, JONATHAN 10/23/2007 440 4 RICHES, JONATHAN 10/29/2007 550 5 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 6 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 7 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 03/23/2006 550 05/18/2006 8 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07/16/2007 550 08/28/2007 9 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/19/2007 550 10 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 470 11 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/16/2007 440 12 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/10/2007 550 11/09/2007 13 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/18/2007 550 14 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/21/2007 550 15 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/10/2007 820 11/20/2007 16 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/19/2007 550 17 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 01/27/2006 540 03/17/2006 18 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07/16/2007 550 19 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/15/2007 550 20 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 440 11/05/2007 21 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/14/2007 840 22 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 03/08/2006 550 05/07/2007 23 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/09/2007 360 24 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/10/2007 550 10/31/2007 25 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/18/2007 550 26 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/20/2007 550 10/09/2007 27 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/14/2007 550 08/16/2007 28 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07/17/2007 550 29 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/17/2007 550 09/24/2007 30 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/07/2007 550 08/13/2007 31 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/12/2007 550 09/20/2007 32 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/27/2007 890 11/08/2007 33 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/21/2007 555 11/13/2007 34 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/05/2007 550 09/12/2007 35 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07/23/2007 550 10/12/2007 36 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 02/16/2006 440 03/22/2006 37 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/12/2007 440 10/16/2007 38 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/22/2007 550 39 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/19/2007 550 10/23/2007 40 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/07/2007 555 10/05/2007 41 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/25/2007 550 42 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/03/2007 550 43 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/16/2007 440 44 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 555 10/17/2007 45 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/16/2007 550 11/20/2007 46 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/28/2007 550 10/02/2007 47 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/28/2007 440 10/19/2007 48 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/22/2007 550 49 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/19/2007 440 50 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 03/09/2006 550 07/26/2006 51 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/21/2007 820 10/24/2007 52 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/13/2007 446 10/26/2007 53 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/19/2007 550 10/19/2007 54 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/01/2007 440 10/22/2007 11/21/2007 08:25:24 us4424 All Types srch RICHES, pg 1 JONATHAN 1 0.08 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ U.S. Party/Case Index All Types Name Search Results 148 Total Party matches for selection RICHES, JONATHAN for ALL COURTS Search Complete Wed Nov 21 08:25:24 2007 Selections 55 through 108 (Page 2) Download (3 pages $ 0.08) Previous 54 Next 40 Civil Cases Name Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed pawdce 2:2007cv01338 pawdce 2:2007cv01377 flmdce 6:2007cv01378 candce 3:2006cv01428 wawdce 2:2007cv01480 flmdce 6:2007cv01504 caedce 1:2007cv01523 txndce 3:2007cv01626 flmdce 8:2007cv01644 lawdce 1:2007cv01656 txndce 3:2007cv01697 moedce 4:2007cv01705 flmdce 8:2007cv01730 pamdce 1:2007cv01747 pamdce 1:2007cv01761 azdce 2:2007cv01824 gandce 1:2007cv01858 pamdce 1:2007cv01883 azdce 2:2007cv01923 dcdce 1:2007cv01977 caedce 2:2007cv01985 azdce 2:2007cv02026 codce 1:2007cv02051 iandce 6:2007cv02062 caedce 2:2007cv02086 caedce 2:2007cv02093 arwdce 2:2007cv02103 caedce 2:2007cv02182 codce 1:2007cv02217 caedce 2:2007cv02219 gandce 1:2007cv02313 caedce 2:2007cv02394 caedce 2:2007cv02395 caedce 2:2007cv02396 caedce 2:2007cv02397 ohndce 1:2007cv02486 gandce 1:2007cv02592 gandce 1:2007cv02609 mddce 8:2007cv02666 scdce 4:2007cv03163 scdce 4:2007cv03177 scdce 4:2007cv03191 scdce 4:2007cv03238 ilcdce 3:2007cv03282 scdce 4:2007cv03313 scdce 4:2007cv03327 scdce 4:2007cv03425 scdce 4:2007cv03456 candce 3:2007cv03695 paedce 2:2007cv04009 paedce 2:2007cv04149 paedce 2:2007cv04413 candce 3:2007cv04539 njdce 3:2007cv04952 Previous 54 Next 40 PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt PACER Client Code: Login: Description: Search Criteria: Billable Cost: Pages: U.S. Party/Case Index — Home Search: All Court Types Appellate Bankruptcy Civil Criminal Reports: Court Code List Date Range Courts not on Index Statistical Reports User Options: Change Client Code New Login Billing History PSC Home Page E-Mail PSC Logout Help • 55 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/03/2007 550 11/06/2007 56 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/12/2007 550 57 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/31/2007 440 09/21/2007 58 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 02/24/2006 550 05/30/2006 59 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/21/2007 820 60 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/21/2007 440 09/24/2007 61 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/19/2007 440 62 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 550 11/06/2007 63 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/14/2007 550 09/18/2007 64 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/02/2007 550 10/04/2007 65 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/05/2007 550 66 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/01/2007 550 67 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 550 09/27/2007 68 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/25/2007 550 11/02/2007 69 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 550 11/02/2007 70 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 550 71 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/03/2007 550 08/16/2007 72 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/12/2007 550 73 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/04/2007 550 74 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 11/02/2007 550 11/02/2007 75 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 550 76 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/18/2007 550 77 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/01/2007 555 11/08/2007 78 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/10/2007 550 10/03/2007 79 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/04/2007 550 80 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/05/2007 550 81 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/20/2007 550 10/29/2007 82 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/15/2007 550 83 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/19/2007 555 84 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/18/2007 550 85 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/21/2007 550 10/23/2007 86 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 11/07/2007 550 87 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 11/07/2007 550 88 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 11/07/2007 550 89 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 11/07/2007 550 11/16/2007 90 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/16/2007 550 08/23/2007 91 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/17/2007 540 10/23/2007 92 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/18/2007 540 10/23/2007 93 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/03/2007 550 10/09/2007 94 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/19/2007 440 95 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/20/2007 440 96 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 440 11/05/2007 97 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/26/2007 440 11/16/2007 98 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/23/2007 550 10/24/2007 99 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/03/2007 440 11/05/2007 100 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/16/2007 440 101 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/15/2007 440 102 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/17/2007 440 103 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07/18/2007 550 08/20/2007 104 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 550 09/28/2007 105 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/03/2007 550 10/10/2007 106 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/22/2007 550 10/25/2007 107 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/31/2007 550 10/03/2007 108 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/15/2007 820 10/18/2007 11/21/2007 08:43:04 us4424 All Types srch RICHES, pg 2 JONATHAN 1 0.08 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ U.S. Party/Case Index All Types Name Search Results 148 Total Party matches for selection RICHES, JONATHAN for ALL COURTS Search Complete Wed Nov 21 08:25:24 2007 Selections 109 through 148 (Page 3) Download (3 pages $ 0.00) Previous 54 Civil Cases Name Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed njdce 1:2007cv05061 candce 3:2007cv05082 candce 3:2007cv05197 candce 3:2007cv05198 candce 3:2007cv05199 candce 3:2007cv05200 candce 3:2007cv05201 candce 3:2007cv05292 candce 3:2007cv05336 candce 3:2007cv05419 candce 3:2007cv05420 candce 3:2007cv05421 candce 3:2007cv05572 candce 3:2007cv05645 candce 3:2007cv05654 candce 3:2007cv05655 candce 3:2007cv05656 ilndce 1:2007cv05984 cacdce 2:2007cv06947 cacdce 2:2007cv06949 laedce 2:2007cv07200 madce 1:2006cv10499 madce 1:2007cv11817 madce 1:2007cv11972 madce 1:2007cv12013 miedce 2:2007cv13041 flsdce 2:2007cv14308 miedce 1:2007cv14469 flsdce 1:2007cv20042 flsdce 0:2007cv61371 • 109 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/22/2007 550 10/26/2007 110 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/03/2007 555 10/25/2007 111 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/11/2007 550 10/25/2007 112 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/11/2007 550 10/25/2007 113 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/11/2007 550 10/25/2007 114 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/11/2007 550 10/25/2007 115 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/11/2007 550 10/26/2007 116 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/17/2007 550 117 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/19/2007 550 118 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/24/2007 550 119 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/24/2007 550 120 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/24/2007 550 121 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 11/01/2007 550 122 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 11/07/2007 550 123 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 11/07/2007 550 124 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 11/07/2007 550 125 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 11/07/2007 550 126 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/23/2007 550 10/31/2007 127 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/25/2007 440 128 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/25/2007 550 129 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 11/05/2007 360 11/15/2007 130 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 03/17/2006 550 06/15/2006 131 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/26/2007 540 10/22/2007 132 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/17/2007 550 10/29/2007 133 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/23/2007 550 10/26/2007 134 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07/23/2007 555 08/08/2007 135 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/11/2007 440 11/14/2007 136 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/22/2007 440 137 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 01/05/2007 550 01/24/2007 138 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/26/2007 440 11/06/2007 Criminal Cases Name Court Case No. Filed Closed txsdce 4:2003cr00090 flmdce 8:2003mj00097 txsdce 4:2003mj00132 Appellate Cases Name Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed 09ca 07-16616 01ca 07-2391 04ca 04ca 04ca Appellate Cases 06cae 06cae Previous 54 PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt PACER Client Code: Login: Description: Search Criteria: Billable Cost: Pages: U.S. Party/Case Index — Home Search: All Court Types Appellate Bankruptcy Civil Criminal Reports: Court Code List Date Range Courts not on Index Statistical Reports User Options: Change Client Code New Login Billing History PSC Home Page E-Mail PSC Logout Help 139 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 03/24/2003 06/10/2004 140 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 02/25/2003 141 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 02/21/2003 142 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/10/2007 3550 11/06/2007 143 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/12/2007 2550 144 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07-7248 08/27/2007 0 10/15/2007 145 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07-7267 08/30/2007 0 10/10/2007 146 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07-7394 10/02/2007 0 147 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07-2123 09/19/2007 3555 148 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07-4130 09/13/2007 3440 11/21/2007 08:43:12 us4424 All Types srch RICHES, pg 3 JONATHAN 1 0.08 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦

EXHIBIT B-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JONATHON LEE RICHES© d/b/a "SECURED PARTY," Plaintiff, CASE NUMBER: 07-13041 HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS v. GUANTANAMO BAY, THE HAGUE, ABU GHRAIB PRISON, SOVIET GULAG ARCHIPELAGO, BELLEVUE HOSPITAL, TEHRAN IRANS EVIN PRISON, RICKERS ISLAND, UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY COLEMAN FLORIDA, AUSCHWITZ CONCENTRATION CAMP, SAN QUENTIN, CHESTER COUNTY PRISON PENNSYLVANIA, GENEVA CONVENTION, MY LAI MASSACRE, ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, COOL HAND LUKE, COOK COUNTY JAIL, ROBBINS ISLAND, BATAAN DEATH MARCH, ALCATRAZ PENITENTIARY, GEO GROUP, NAVY BRIG CHARLESTON S.C., "TDCJ" TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY JAIL TAMPA FLORIDA; SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, CORRECTION CORP. OF AMERICA "CCA", Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Jonathon Lee Riches ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint against Guantanamo Bay, The Hague, Abu Grab Prison, Soviet Gulag Archipelago, Bellevue Hospital, Tehran Iran's Evin Prison, Riker's Island, United States Penitentiary Coleman Florida, Auschwitz Concentration Camp, San Quentin, Chester County Prison Pennsylvania, Geneva Convention, My Lai Massacre, Attica Correctional Facility, Cool Hand Luke, Cook County Jail, Robbins Island, Bataan Death March, Alcatraz Penitentiary, Geo Group, Navy Brig Charleston S.C., "TDCJ" Texas Department Criminal Justice, Hillsborough County Jail Tampa Florida, Shawshank Redemption, Correction Corp. Of America "CCA" (collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants inter alia engaged in a conspiracy to: 1) kidnap his mind; 2) steal his identity; 3) violate his copyrighted name; 4) force him to eat rats; and 5) subject him to microwave testing. Plaintiff seeks $728 trillion dollars in damages.

The Court generally may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint where the filing fee has been paid unless the court gives the plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. Tingler v. Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109, 1111-12 (6th Cir. 1983). A dismissal, however, is warranted "pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion." Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Dekoven v. Bell, 142 F.Supp.2d 748, 755 (E.D.Mich. 2001). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact" and includes allegations that are "clearly baseless", "fantastic", or "delusional." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also, Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

Because Plaintiff's allegations are baseless, fantastic and delusional, the Court dismisses his Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts ______________________________________ Victoria A. Roberts Dated: 8/8/07 United States District Judge

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this document was served on the attorneys of record and pro se plaintiff by electronic means or U.S. Mail on August 8, 2007.

s/Carol A. Pinegar ____________________ Deputy Clerk

EXHIBIT B-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION JONATHAN LEE RICHES, Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 6:07-cv-1504-Orl-31KRS ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON; STEVE JOBS; AND APPLE COMPUTER, INC., 2:07-mc-33-fTM Defendants. ________________________________

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the complaint (Doc. 1) filed by the Plaintiff, Jonathan Lee Riches ("Riches"), who is currently incarcerated at FCI Williamsburg. A cursory review of the complaint is sufficient to establish that it is nothing more than fanciful nonsense, with Riches accusing the Defendants of a litany of offenses ranging from the wildly improbable to the flatly impossible, with the latter predominating. For example, Riches alleges that Simpson has been Jobs's "hitman" since the "1985 MOVE house bombing in Philadelphia, which Jobs started with borrowed pyrotechnics from Great White." The remainder of the Complaint continues in the same outlandish vein, with Dolly the Sheep, Lance Armstrong's bicycle, Princess Diana, and the United Auto Workers making appearances, among many others. The whole thing reads like a cross between Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire" and a Dr. Bronner's soap label, if Dr. Bronner had been a first-year law student with untreated paranoid schizophrenia.

This is not Riches's first appearance before the undersigned. Several weeks ago, he filed suit against Elvis Presley and Neverland Ranch for, inter alia, "WAR CRIMES Rock N Rollin My Brain." (Doc. 1 at 1 in Case No. 6:07-cv-1378-GAP-KRS). Riches even has his own Wikipedia entry —http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan Lee Riches — chronicling some of the dozens of similar suits he has filed in federal courts across the country.

It is not clear whether these outlandish pleadings are products of actual mental illness or simply a hobby akin to short story writing. Whatever their origin, and though they are amusing to the average reader, they do nothing more than clog the machinery of justice, interfering with the court's ability to address the needs of the genuinely aggrieved. It is time for them to stop.

The Court notes that Riches did not pay the filing fee in either of the cases he filed here. Rather than impose sanctions, the Court will simply require that he pay that fee with any future complaints. If this requirement fails to dissuade Riches from further meritless filings, the Court will impose stiffer requirements and/or sanctions until Riches finds another way to occupy his time.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as obviously frivolous, and the Clerk is directed to close the case. And it is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff, Jonathan Lee Riches, is RESTRICTED from filing any civil complaints in this Court without payment of the full statutory filing fee. The Clerk is directed to REFUSE any complaint that is not accompanied by that fee at the time of its attempted filing.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on September 24, 2007.

______________________________ GREGORY A. PRESNELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EXHIBIT B-3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION JONATHAN LEE RICHES CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-1656-A -vs- JUDGE DRELL JENA 6, et al. MAGISTRATE JUDGE KIRK

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.^1a

1a 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.^2a In order to balance the Court's interest in controlling its docket against Mr. Riches' right to be heard in non-frivolous suits,

2a 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.

SIGNED on this 24^th day of October, 2007, at Alexandria, Louisiana.

__________________________________ DEE D. DRELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Exhibit

EXHIBIT B-4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION JONATHAN LEE RICHES CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-1656-A -vs- JUDGE DRELL JENA 6, et al. MAGISTRATE JUDGE KIRK

ORDER

This action by Jonathan Lee Riches, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institute in Williamsburg, South Carolina, has been rejected for filing deficiencies. This plaintiff is known to the Court as a charlatan who apparently simply has nothing else to do but draft spurious suits to file in federal court. See, as an attachment to this Order, the Pacer United States Party/Case Name Index.

While most courts appreciate a good joke, there is nothing funny about his suits, which are intended to garner publicity and nothing else. Mr. Riches has also already gained his own entry in Wikipedia, a dubious honor in such circumstances. The Court will not waste perfectly good time and resources in allowing Mr. Riches an inroad into the system

Accordingly, and in appreciation of this Court's inherent power to control its docket, this suit is DISMISSED and Mr. Riches is barred from making any further filings in the Western District of Louisiana. ANY pleadings, materials, documents and anything else received from him are to be discarded by the Clerk and not accepted for filing, effective immediately.

SIGNED on this 4^th day of October, 2007, at Alexandria, Louisiana.

____________________________________ DEE D. DRELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE U.S. Party/Case Index All Types Name Search Results 77 Total Party matches for selection RICHES, JONATHAN LEE for ALL COURTS Search Complete Thu Oct 4 13:21:32 2007 Selections 1 through 54 (Page 1) Download (2 pages $ 0.08) Next 23 Name Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed flmdce 2:2007mc00033 wydce 2:2006cv00081 medce 2:2007cv00124 wvndce 1:2007cv00130 flndce 1:2007cv00150 medce 2:2007cv00169 gamdce 1:2007cv00176 scdce 6:2006cv00194 nhdce 1:2007fp00212 pawdce 1:2007cv00255 okedce 6:2007cv00292 nvdce 2:2006cv00293 iasdce 4:2007cv00369 inndce 3:2007cv00375 kywdce 3:2007cv00376 flmdce 5:2007cv00376 vawdce 7:2007cv00379 ncwdce 3:2007cv00384 flndce 4:2007cv00408 vawdce 7:2007cv00427 vaedce 3:2007cv00434 scdce 4:2006cv00442 dedce 1:2007cv00538 vaedce 3:2007cv00594 vaedce 3:2007cv00606 flmdce 2:2007cv00619 aredce 4:2007cv00780 nmdce 6:2007cv00843 flmdce 3:2007cv00893 paedce 2:2006cv01055 okwdce 5:2007cv01066 pawdce 2:2007cv01237 nvdce 2:2007cv01282 nvdce 2:2007cv01331 pawdce 2:2007cv01338 flmdce 6:2007cv01378 candce 3:2006cv01428 wawdce 2:2007cv01480 flmdce 6:2007cv01504 txndce 3:2007cv01626 flmdce 8:2007cv01644 lawdce 1:2007cv01656 flmdce 8:2007cv01730 pamdce 1:2007cv01747 pamdce 1:2007cv01761 azdce 2:2007cv01824 gandce 1:2007cv01858 caedce 2:2007cv01985 codce 1:2007cv02051 iandce 6:2007cv02062 arwdce 2:2007cv02103 gandce 1:2007cv02313 ohndce 1:2007cv02486 mddce 8:2007cv02666 • Civil Cases 1 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 In re: Jonathan Lee Riches 2 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 03/23/2006 550 05/18/2006 Riches v. United States Military et al 3 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07/16/2007 550 08/28/2007 RICHES v. FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM et al 4 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 470 Riches v. Crandall Canyon Mine et al 5 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/16/2007 440 RICHES v. ONSTAR CORPORATION et al 6 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/21/2007 550 RICHES v. FANFAN et al 7 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/10/2007 820 Riches v. 50 Cent 8 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 01/27/2006 540 03/17/2006 Riches v. Bureau of Prisons et al 9 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07/16/2007 550 Riches v. Jewish Mossad et al 10 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 440 RICHES v. KARR et al 11 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/14/2007 840 Riches v. Underwood 12 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 03/08/2006 550 05/07/2007 Riches v. Defcon, et al 13 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/20/2007 550 Riches v. I-35W Bridge 14 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/14/2007 550 08/16/2007 Riches v. Bonds et al 15 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07/17/2007 550 Riches v. Identity Theft Inc. et al 16 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/17/2007 550 09/24/2007 Riches v. Snipes 17 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/07/2007 550 08/13/2007 Riches v. Swartz et al 18 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/12/2007 550 09/20/2007 Riches v. Gordon et al 19 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/21/2007 555 RICHES v. SIMPSON et al 20 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/05/2007 550 09/12/2007 Riches v. Williams et al 21 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07/23/2007 550 Riches v. Vick 22 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 02/16/2006 440 03/22/2006 Riches v. Bush 23 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/07/2007 555 Riches v. Craig et al 24 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/25/2007 550 Riches v. Simpson et al 25 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/03/2007 550 Riches v. Lindh et al 26 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 555 Riches v. Noriega 27 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/28/2007 550 10/02/2007 Riches v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc 28 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/28/2007 440 Riches v. Imus 29 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/19/2007 440 Riches v. Simpson 30 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 03/09/2006 550 07/26/2006 RICHES v. BUSH et al 31 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/21/2007 820 Riches v. Underwood 32 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/13/2007 446 RICHES v. INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE et al 33 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/19/2007 550 Riches v. Simpson 34 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/01/2007 440 Riches v. Jones 35 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/03/2007 550 RICHES vs. STEWART ET AL 36 RICHES. JONATHAN LEE 08/31/2007 440 09/21/2007 Riches v. Presley et al 37 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 02/24/2006 550 05/30/2006 Riches v. Uniform Commercial Code 38 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/21/2007 820 Riches v. Gates et al 39 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/21/2007 440 09/24/2007 Riches v. Simpson et al 40 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 550 Riches v. Holy Land Foundation For Relief and Development et al 41 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/14/2007 550 09/18/2007 Riches v. Schiavo et al 42 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/02/2007 550 Riches v. Jena 6 43 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 550 09/27/2007 Riches v. Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo et al 44 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/25/2007 550 Riches v. Beckham et al 45 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 550 Riches v. FEMA et al 46 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 550 Riches v. DMX 47 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/03/2007 550 08/16/2007 Riches et al v. Vick et al 48 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 550 (PC)Riches v. Kaczynski 49 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/01/2007 555 Riches v. McVeigh et al 50 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/10/2007 550 10/03/2007 Riches v. Tyson 51 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/20/2007 550 Riches v. Karr et al 52 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/21/2007 550 Riches v. Simpson et al 53 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/16/2007 550 08/23/2007 Riches v. James et al 54 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/03/2007 550 Riches v. Brady et al U.S. Party/Case Index All Types Name Search Results 77 Total Party matches for selection RICHES, JONATHAN LEE for ALL COURTS Search Complete Thu Oct 4 13:21:32 2007 Selections 55 through 77 (Page 2) Download (2 pages $ 0.00) Previous 54 Name Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed scdce 4:2007cv03163 scdce 4:2007cv03177 scdce 4:2007cv03191 scdce 4:2007cv03238 candce 3:2007cv03695 paedce 2:2007cv04009 paedce 2:2007cv04149 candce 3:2007cv04539 madce 1:2006cv10499 madce 1:2007cv11817 miedce 2:2007cv13041 flsdce 1:2007cv20042 flsdce 0:2007cv61371 Name Court Case No. Filed Closed txsdce 4:2003cr00090 flmdce 8:2003mj00097 txsdce 4:2003mj00132 Name Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed 09ca 07-16616 01ca 07-2391 04ca 07-7248 04ca 07-7267 04ca 07-7394 06cae 06cae • Civil Cases 55 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/19/2007 440 Riches v. Simpson 56 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/20/2007 440 Riches v. Simpson et al 57 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 440 Riches v. Simpson et al 58 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/26/2007 440 Riches v. Simpson et al 59 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07/18/2007 550 08/20/2007 Riches v. Sheehan et al 60 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/24/2007 550 09/28/2007 RICHES v. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE et al 61 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/03/2007 550 JONATHAN LEE RICHES v. SCARFO et al 62 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/31/2007 550 10/03/2007 Riches v. Peterson et al 63 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 03/17/2006 550 06/15/2006 Riches v. Federal Reserve Bank et al 64 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/26/2007 890 Riches v. Belichick et al 65 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07/23/2007 555 08/08/2007 Riches v. Guantanamo Bay et al 66 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 01/05/2007 550 01/24/2007 Riches v. Doe 67 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/26/2007 440 Riches v. Simpson et al Criminal Cases 68 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 03/24/2003 06/10/2004 USA v. Carpenter, et al 69 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 02/25/2003 USA v. Riches, et al 70 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 02/21/2003 USA v. Carpenter, et al Appellate Cases 71 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/10/2007 3550 RICHES vs. SHEEHAN 72 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 09/12/2007 2550 RICHES vs. FEDERAL JUDICAL 73 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/27/2007 0 RICHES vs. SWARTZ 74 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 08/30/2007 0 RICHES vs. VICK 75 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 10/02/2007 0 RICHES vs. WILLIAMS Appellate Cases 76 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07-2123 09/19/2007 3555 JONATHAN RICHES v. GUANTANAMO BAY 77 RICHES, JONATHAN LEE 07-4130 09/13/2007 3440 JONATHAN RICHES v. LEBRON JAMES, et al

EXHIBIT B-5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION JONATHAN LEE RICHES, ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:07-cv-00379 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) JON SWARTZ, et al. , ) By: Samuel G. Wilson Defendants. ) United States District Judge Plaintiff Jonathan Lee Riches, a Federal inmate proceeding pro se, brings this action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with jurisdiction vested under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Riches alleges that the defendants have violated his rights by "trading with the enemy," hacking his computer, and committing copyright infringement, murder, treason, illegal wiretapping, identity theft, phishing, spamming, code cracking, and "federal tort claims." As Riches has not submitted the necessary $350 filing fee for a civil action, the court will also construe his pleading as a request to proceed in forma pauperis and deny that request. The court finds that Riches' claims are frivolous and, therefore, dismisses his complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).^1b

I.

Riches names Jon Swartz of USA Today and cardcops.com, "Virginia Tech Shooting," Ed Mierzwinski of U.S. PIRG (a federation of state Public Interest Research Groups), "creditcards.com," "Phishing," and the "World Wide Web" as defendants to his action. Riches alleges that defendant Swartz is a reporter for USA Today and cardcops.com, who writes about cybercrime. Riches alleges that Swartz's stories "show the know how and encourage people to commit cybercrime," which, he claims "is entrapment." Swartz allegedly writes about how to commit credit card fraud, encode data on a magnetic strip, and steal someone's identity. "Then he sits back and waits. Then reports the crime to the FBI for whistle blowing money."

Riches further alleges that Swartz "provided Cho [Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech gunman,] the credit card to buy handguns to shoot Virginia Tech," that he "showed Cho how to boost his credit score to get higher available credit," and that he "showed Cho how to commit identity theft and phishing over the w[orld] w[ide] w[eb]." Riches continues on to state that Swartz is involved in a "vast conspiracy" with defendant Ed Mierzwinski, students of Norris Hall (an engineering classroom building located on the Virginia Tech campus), and "convicted computer hackers and phreakers"^2b to use his online hacking handle "Gino Romano" to publish different ways to "do cybercrime." He also claims that they "hacked [his] mind."

2b "Phreakers" is the slang term for people who study, experiment with, or explore telephone systems, the equipment of telephone companies, and systems connected to public telephone networks.See Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phreaking (last visited August 8, 2007).

As relief, Riches seeks a restraining order against Swartz and Virginia Tech, preventing them from publishing any articles and ordering them to stay away from Riches, to stop using his "copyrighted name" in newspaper articles, to stop calling him a "super hacker," and to stop violating his "6th Amendment rights to being a[n] identity th[ief] [and] identity fraud kingpin which was not proven by a jury [sic]."

II.

To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that such deprivation is a result of conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). Where an inmate is proceeding in forma pauperis, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous. . . . "§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Fantastical or delusional claims are clearly baseless and, thus, are insufficient to withstand the court's evaluation for frivolity dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). In this case, Riches' allegations are clearly fantastic and fail to establish that he has been deprived of a constitutionally or federally protected right. Therefore, the court dismisses his complaint as frivolous.

III.

For the reasons stated, the court will dismiss Riches' complaint without prejudice pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).^3a

3a Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner may not bringa civil action underthis statute, if on three or more occasions, he has brought an action or an appeal in the federal court that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A search on PACER reveals that in addition to having six cases dismissed for failure to comply and seven cases currently pending throughout the United States, Riches already has one strike assessed against him. See Riches v. Doe, No. 1:07cv20042 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2007). Riches is hereby put on notice that the dismissal of this case as frivolous now counts as his second strike.

The Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order to plaintiff.

ENTER: This 13th day of August, 2007.

______________________________________ United States District Judge

EXHIBIT B-6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION JONATHAN LEE RICHES, ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:07-cv-00427 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) VENUS WILLIAMS, et al. , ) By: Samuel G. Wilson Defendants. ) United States District Judge Plaintiff Jonathan Lee Riches, a Virginia prisoner proceedingpro se, filed this complaint which the court will construe as an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As Riches has not submitted the necessary $350.00 filing fee for a civil action, the court will also construe his pleading as a request to proceed in forma pauperis and deny that request.

According to court records, Riches has had three previous civil rights complaints dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim.^1c Therefore, Riches may not proceed with this action unless he either pays the $350.00 filing fee or shows that he is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

1c See Riches v. Bush, No. 4:06cv00442 (D. S.C. Mar. 22, 2006);Riches v. Doe, No. 1:07cv20042 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2007); Riches v. Swartz, No. 7:07cv00379 (W.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2007). The court notes, that in his last case before this court, Riches v. Swartz, No. 7:07cv00379 (W.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2007), the court advised Riches that he had two strikes against him, however, it has been brought to the court's attention that he received an additional strike from Riches v. Bush, No. 4:06cv00442 (D. S.C. Mar. 22, 2006). Accordingly, Riches has at least three strikes against him.

As Riches has neither prepaid the filing fee nor demonstrated that he is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury,"^2c the court dismisses his complaint without prejudice.^3b

2c Riches names tennis players Venus and Serena Williams, their father Richard Williams, the "U.S. Open," and "poltergeist" as defendants to his action. He claims that defendants Venus and Serena Williams are "reaching through the T.V. set to grab [him] during the U.S. Open," in an "attempted coup of [his] mind." He also alleges that the poltergeist is "roaming our airwaves and CB radio." He states that Richard Williams has had a "beef with [him] since the Nixon era" and that "he still rents summer homes from Randy Weaver." Riches claims that the tennis balls used in the U.S. Open are "electrons and neurons stolen from [his] head." He alleges that the defendants also "took Van Gogh paintings from [him]." He further alleges that Serena Williams "put the knife in Monica Seles shoulder" in 1999 and that he taught Venus Williams how to play table tennis in the county jail in 2004. Finally, he claims that the defendants told him that "they want to eat [his] head for supper" and that they want to "learn identity theft from [him]." As relief, Riches asks the courts to "withdrawthe Williams sisters from any more tennis tournaments" and, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 64, "seize U.S. Open tennis balls [and] bring [his] neurons back [to him]."
To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that such deprivation is a result of conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). Where an inmate is proceeding in forma pauperis, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous. . . ." § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Fantastical or delusional claims are clearly baseless and, thus, are insufficient to withstand the court's evaluation for frivolity dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). In this case, Riches' allegations are clearly fantastic and fail to establish that he has been deprived of a constitutionally or federally protected right. Therefore, the court finds that his complaint is frivolous.

3b The court has previously notified Riches that he may not file civil actions in this court unless he either pays the filing fee or demonstrates that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Therefore, the court will not give Riches additional time to pay the filing fee or amend his complaint.

The Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order to the plaintiff.

ENTER: This 12th day of September, 2007.

______________________________________ United States District Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EXHIBIT B-7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DANIEL WEBBER, Plaintiff, Case Number: 06-14022 v. HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN SGT. WEIDMAN, ET AL., Defendants. __________________________________/

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a state inmate at the Standish Correctional Facility in Standish, Michigan, has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an application to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff has filed three prior civil rights complaints which have been dismissed as frivolous. Therefore, the Court shall dismiss the pending complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (" PLRA"), Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), the Court may dismiss a case if, on three or more previous occasions, a federal court has dismissed the incarcerated plaintiff's action because it was frivolous or malicious or failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (1996). Plaintiff has filed three prior civil rights complaints which have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Webber v. Standish Maximum Correctional Facility, No. 05-cv-10126 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2005); Webber v. Standish Maximum Corr. Facility, No. 06-cv-1 1921 (E.D. Mich. May 10, 2006); Weber v. McGinnis, No. 06-cv-12226 (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2006).

A plaintiff may maintain a civil action without prepayment of the filing fee despite having had three or more civil actions dismissed as frivolous if the prisoner is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).^1d To establish that his complaint falls within the statutory exception to the three strikes rule, a prisoner must allege that he is under imminent danger at the time that he seeks to file his complaint and proceed in forma pauperis. Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8^th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff sufficiently alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury where he claimed that he was placed near inmates on his enemy list and subject to ongoing danger); Banos v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5^th Cir. 1998) (past body cavity searches failed to establish imminent danger of serious physical injury); Luedtke v. Bertrand, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1077 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (allegation of past physical injury is insufficient to meet statutory exception).

1d Section 1915(g) provides, in pertinent part:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this subsection if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

In the pending case, Plaintiff fails to allege that he is under imminent danger of future harm. Therefore, he will not be permitted to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and his complaint is subject to dismissal under the "three strikes" provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Should Plaintiff wish to pursue the allegations contained in his complaint, he must submit payment of the $350.00 filing fee within 30 days. Upon receipt of the filing fee, the Court will re-open the case and review the complaint to determine whether it should be served or should be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

___________________________________ BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: