United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
B. RUSSELL, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
in forma pauperis, Plaintiff Tyrone Hurt filed a
pro se complaint on his own paper. Thereafter, in
compliance with a Notice of Deficiency issued by the Clerk of
Court, Plaintiff filed his complaint on a Court-supplied
form. Both complaints are largely illegible and incoherent.
Plaintiff lists his address as located in Washington, D.C.;
names Donald Trump as the sole Defendant; and seems to
indicate that he is bringing the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for violation of constitutional rights.
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court
must review the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th
Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). On review, a district court
must dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the
action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). The trial court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Id. at 327. In this case, the
complaint contains conclusory allegations of constitutional
violations, which the Court is not required to accept.
See Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561
F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he district court
need not accept a ‘bare assertion of legal
conclusions.'”) (quoting Columbia Nat. Res.,
Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995)). The
complaint contains no factual assertions to support any legal
theories upon which a valid federal claim may rest, and the
allegations are baseless. The complaint, therefore, will be
dismissed as frivolous.
the complaint is subject to dismissal for improper venue.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Defendant is not
located in the Western District of Kentucky, and nothing in
the complaint describes any events occurring in the Western
District of Kentucky or gives any reason for filing this
action in this Court.
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, Mo., Cleveland, Ohio,
Baltimore, Md., All Law Enf't Officials Within This
Nation Et Al, Forty-Seven States To The U.S. 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 (Doc. No. 9, Mem. Op. and Order entered Mar.
foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss this action by
 Plaintiff was permitted to proceed
in forma pauperis in the instant action because the
filing of the instant complaint predated the ...