United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. Hale, Judge
Tyrone Hurt filed the instant pro se action
proceeding in forma pauperis. This matter is now
before the Court on initial review of the complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and McGore v. Wriggle
sworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on
other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
Upon initial screening of the complaint, the instant action
will be dismissed for the reasons that follow.
filed the complaint on his own paper. Plaintiff lists his
address as located in Washington, D.C. He names the following
Defendants in this action: (1) All Federal Circuits; (2) The
American People; and (3) the United States of America.
Plaintiff appears to be bringing this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The
complaint is mostly illegible and incoherent. However,
Plaintiff appears to complain about the Sixth Circuit's
failure or refusal to implement something. Plaintiff refers
to "Article III, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution
within the Gene Snyder, United States Courthouse, 601 West
Broadway, Suite 450, Louisville, Ky." Plaintiff then
refers to in forma pauperis status and "moves
the Honorable, Vol, Dist. For the Sixth (6th) Cir, for ... to
proceed in forma pauperis . . . ." Plaintiff
continues stating that he is unable to "pre-pay the ...
for the foregoing complaint. . . ." Plaintiff then
refers to the "U.S. Constitution"; "Title 28
U.S.C. § 1915, . . . Article III, Section 1 to the U.S.
Constitution"; "Blacks Law Dictionary"; and
"The American College Dictionary." In the
complaint, Plaintiff includes a section requesting relief.
Therein he refers to the Sixth Circuit, "en Banc, "
and requests a trillion dollars in "punitive and
district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss
a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when
the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible,
attenuated, unsubstantiated, frivolous, devoid of merit, or
no longer open to discussion." Apple v. Glenn,
183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Hagans v.
Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (listing numerous
Supreme Court cases for the proposition that patently
frivolous, attenuated, or unsubstantial claims divest the
district court of jurisdiction)). A complaint is frivolous if
it lacks an arguable or rational basis in law or fact.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 329-30 (1989);
Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir.
1990). The instant complaint meets this standard.
addition, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
requires that a complaint contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief
in the alternative or different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). "[A] . . . complaint must contain
either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the
material elements to sustain a recovery under some
viable legal theory." Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy
Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 556 (2007)). "A pleading that offers 'labels
and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.' Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]'
devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'"
Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555, 557). Conclusory allegations or bare legal
conclusions will not suffice as factual allegations.
Follow ell v. Mills, 317 F.App'x 501, 505 (6th
Cir. 2009) ("Conclusory allegations or legal conclusions
masquerading as factual allegations will not suffice.");
Gregory v. Shelby Cty., Tenn., 220 F.3d 433, 446
(6th Cir. 2000) ("[W]e need not accept as true legal
conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences.").
instant case, Plaintiff fails to provide material facts in
support of any viable legal theory. The complaint does not
contain sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true,
states "a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570). Plaintiff fails to place Defendants on notice as to any
claim(s) against them, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,
534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (indicating that the short and plain
statement of a claim must '"give the defendant fair
notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests'") (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), abrogated on other
grounds by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544), and the complaint is simply too vague and sparse to
state a cause of action under any legal theory. The complaint
fails to meet the basic pleading standard required by
addition, a review of the federal judiciary's online
database, Public Access to Court Electronic Records
("PACER"), shows that Plaintiff has filed hundreds
of cases in federal courts across the country. See Hurt
v. Encinia, No. H-15-2602, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147815,
at *6 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2015) ("A national litigation
index reveals that since 1985, Hurt has filed at least 468
civil actions in federal courts across the country.").
Plaintiff has been deemed an abusive and vexatious litigant
by numerous other courts. See, e.g., Hurt v. Soc. Sec.
Admin., 544 F.3d 308, 310 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ("[W]e
think 'the number, content, frequency, and
disposition' of his filings shows an especially abusive
pattern .... Hurt has brought numerous meritless
appeals-suits targeting institutions, people and inanimate
objects-while asking for sums of money dwarfing the size of
the Federal Government's annual budget."); Hurt
v. Ferguson, Missouri, Cleveland, Ohio, Baltimore, Maryland,
All Law Enforcement Officials Within This Nation Et Al,
Forty-Seven States To The United States Of America, No.
1:15-cv-01054-WTL-TAB, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89669, at *4
(S.D. Ind. July 10, 2015) ("Mr. Hurt's abusive
patterns must come to an end. Mr. Hurt's cases represent
countless hours of judicial time that could be spent on cases
which state viable claims."); Hurt v. Lanier,
No. 1:14-cv-484-GZS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163201, at *4 (D.
Me. Nov. 19, 2014) ("Taking judicial notice of the other
actions Plaintiff has recently filed with this Court as well
as his filing history in other districts, there is ample
evidence that Hurt is an abusive and vexatious
Plaintiff "has been repeatedly warned (to no effect) and
ultimately banned from filing complaints and/or appeals in
forma pauperis by numerous other districts and appellate
courts." Hurt v. Sterling, No. L14-CV-436, 2014
WL 2257176, at *3 (S.D. Ohio May 29, 2014), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 1:14CV436, 2014 WL 3573637
(S.D. Ohio July 21, 2014). In addition, because of the
vexatious and frivolous lawsuits Plaintiff has filed in the
Western District of Kentucky, he recently has been prohibited
from proceeding in forma pauperis in any future