United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DIRECTING DISMISSAL OF ACTION AND ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, District Judge.
This action was filed by Tyrone Hurt, a citizen of the District of Columbia. He has named as defendants the Social Security Administration, Unknown Narcotics Agents, and Former President George W. Bush.
Mr. Hurt's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is denied because he has failed to demonstrate that he is eligible to proceed in that fashion.
Regardless of whether the plaintiff has paid the filing fee, the Court must assess the complaint under the standard established in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This statute directs that the Court dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint which "(1) is frivolous or malicious;
(2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id.
As previously discussed in Hurt v. Tuskegee Airment, 1:14-cv-1866-LJM-TAB and Hunt v. Hinson, 1:14-cv-1781-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. November 5, 2014), the PACER Case Locator reflects that Mr. Hurt is a frequent filer of frivolous litigation using both the surnames Hurt and Hunt. See Hurt v. Paige, No. 13-1412 (7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2013); Hurt v. D.C. Government, No. 13-1413 (7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2013); Hurt v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 544 F.3d 308, 311 (D.C. Cir. 2008); ("We revoke Hurt's IFP privilege, dismiss all his appeals pending before this Court and direct the Clerk of the Court to refuse to accept any more of Hurt's civil appeals that are not accompanied by the appropriate filing fees."); Hurt v. Unit 32, No. 1:12-1784-UNA (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2012) (denied in forma pauperis and dismissed complaint because plaintiff has been barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in the district court). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia explained "we think the number, content, frequency, and disposition' of his filings shows an especially abusive pattern, aimed at taking advantage of the IFP privilege." Hurt, 544 F.3d at 310. "If Hurt wishes to continue wasting this Court's time by appealing dismissals of his absurd and frivolous claims, he should have to do it on his own dime." Id. at 310-11. Mr. Hurt has been barred from filing new cases in many other district courts, including the District of Massachusetts, the Northern District of Georgia, and the Eastern and Northern Districts of California, but the Court need not catalog them all. See Hurt v. D.C. Parole Board, 13-11800-DJC (D. Mass. November 20, 2013) (discussing filing restrictions).
Although most of Mr. Hurt's complaint is illegible, based on the fact that Mr. Hurt is attempting to sue a) a federal agency while he has no connection with this district, b) unknown individuals (any claim against a John Doe defendant is dismissed because "it is pointless to include lists of anonymous defendants in federal court; this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation back under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff." Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted)), and c) a former President who has immunity from suit, this complaint warrants no further discussion. "District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense." Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 762 (7th Cir. 2003)(citing Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999)).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Judgment consistent with this Entry ...