United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
Tyrone Hurt (Plaintiff), who lists his address as located in
Washington, D.C., filed a pro se complaint on his
own paper. In addition to listing himself in the caption as a
plaintiff, he also lists Washington, D.C.'s National
Museum of African-American History and Culture as a
plaintiff. As Defendant, he names the United States
of America. The handwritten complaint is difficult to read as
it is largely illegible and incoherent. The Court, however,
is able to make out Plaintiff's reference to Bivens
v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971) and the Fourth and Thirteenth Amendments and also a
reference to “the illegal capture of Africans from the
continent of Africa in violation of humanitirian [illegible]
. . . .”
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. Followell 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 Defendant on notice as to any
claim(s) against it, 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 plaintiff's 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 Atl. 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
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 Am., 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. 1:14-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 has been prohibited from
proceeding in forma pauperis in any future actions
filed in this Court. Hurt v. Civil Rights Lawyer, No.
3:17-cv-39-DJH (Document Number 9, Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated March 21, 2017).
foregoing reasons, the instant action will be dismissed by
 Plaintiff, a non-attorney, is
prohibited from representing the Museum. See, e.g.,
Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir.
2002) (“Although 28 U.S.C. § 1654 provides that
‘[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may
plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel,
' that statute does not permit plaintiffs to ...