United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
the Court is plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1), filed in
forma pauperis. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed
numerous lawsuits in this Court relating to allegations of
perceived unfair treatment or alleged racial and spiritual
discrimination. Shortly after plaintiff initiated this suit,
Chief Judge Gregory K. Frizzell entered an order imposing
filing restrictions on plaintiff because of his
“abusive practice” in this District.
(See No. 18-CV-2-GKF-JFJ, Doc. 6).
sues Billingsley Auction Sale, a citizen of Senatobia,
Mississippi. In a separate case he filed against the alleged
principals of Billingsley Auction Sale (Travis Billingsley
and Neal Billingsley), plaintiff's factual allegations
are identical to those he asserts in this case. (Compare Doc.
1 in No. 18-CV-42-GKF to Doc. 1 in this case). Judge Frizzell
dismissed the other action because the plaintiff there did
not identify any basis for subject matter jurisdiction and
had not in any event stated a cognizable claim for relief.
(Doc. 5 in No. 18-CV-42-GKF). Here, Plaintiff asserts that
jurisdiction is based upon the following:
“Violation of Civil Rights By vaig word and action By
taking of other's Jurisprudence of Jurisdictional in
(Doc. 1 [in original form, without correction]).
to plaintiff, the nature of this case involves a
“Conspiracy to Discriminate.” (Id.). His
allegations include disjointed assertions that, in the early
part of the 2000's, he was working at a stockyard in
Mississippi, when he noticed “Ricky” point to
plaintiff and say “that's the anointed right
there.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff left the
stockyard for employment in Memphis, Tennessee, after getting
out of prison. He was living at a mission, when his
“life was lighted up with [his] vision, ” in
which he “could see Travis Billingsley looking at the
contractor” and he heard him say a racial slur in
referring to the plaintiff, while asking a contractor not to
give the plaintiff a raise. (Id.). Mr. Billingsley
allegedly used horrible racial slurs to refer to plaintiff.
on in life [plaintiff] realize[d] that [Travis Billingsley]
was running behind [plaintiff], getting [plaintiff] fired
from different Jobs, ” and “Others conspired with
him that was colored that work for him in conspiring
agains[t] plaintiff.” (Id.). Plaintiff now
sees Billingsley and others “coming behind [plaintiff]
at the casinos, ” and plaintiff “was stripped of
spirit and spirits, laughed at, and mocked” by
Billingsley and plaintiff's own family. (Id.).
Plaintiff also “felt the presence of [his] spritual
[sic] to physical body being raped.” (Id.).
Finally, plaintiff alleges:
Travis took off people [sic] spiritual heads and put them in
a bull pen. Where I saw my own head. He had hid in the
stockyard. I believe that. Him and Borack [sic] Obama
conspired together that if he paid Travis to keep me on the
street and in Mission Shelter's [sic] they could take
anointed presidential presidency out of my physical and
(Id. at 4).
commenced this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. In enacting § 1915(a), Congress intended to
provide indigent litigants meaningful access to the federal
courts. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324
(1989). “Congress recognized, however, that a litigant
whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public,
unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to
refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive
lawsuits.” Id. To prevent frivolous filings,
the statute authorizes a court to sua sponte dismiss a case
filed in forma pauperis where the action is frivolous or
malicious, or the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); Stafford v. United States, 208 F.3d
1177, 1179 n.4 (10th Cir. 2000).
pro se pleadings must be liberally construed and must be held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972),
a district court should not assume the role of advocate.
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991); United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975
(10th Cir. 2009); Garret v. Selby Connor Maddux &
Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). Moreover,
even pro se plaintiffs are required to comply with the
“fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
and Appellate Procedure” and substantive law, and the
liberal construction to be afforded does not transform
“vague and conclusory arguments” into valid
claims for relief. Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d
452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). The court “will not supply
additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's
complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's
behalf.” Whitney v. N.M., 113 F.3d 1170,
1173-1174 (10th Cir. 1997).
the plaintiff's allegations broadly, the plaintiff's
Complaint is focused on recent allegations that Mr.
Billingsley (and plaintiff's family members) have
continued to follow plaintiff into casinos and/or mock him.
Allegations of mocking or spiritual damage caused by private
citizens do not state a claim under federal law and would not
provide a basis for this Court's exercise of federal
question jurisdiction. To the extent that plaintiff is
attempting to assert some form of state law tort claim, any
such claim likewise fails because he seeks damages of $10,
000, which is insufficient to support the Court's
exercise of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
asserts a conspiracy to discriminate against and follow the
plaintiff, which began with Mr. Billingsley in the
“early part of the 2000's” in Mississippi and
continued with others, including the plaintiff s own family,
following him into casinos in Oklahoma. Other judges of this
Court have dismissed plaintiffs similar allegations of
violations of religious belief and stalking from Senatobia,
Mississippi to Tulsa, Oklahoma, and references to occurrences
at casinos. (See Nos. 18-CV-1-TCK-FHM, Doc. 3;
18-CV-5-CVE-FHM, Doc. 1; 18-CV-17-TCK-JFJ, Doc. 1). Federal
law does not provide a claim to relief or exercise of subject
matter jurisdiction for alleged “Violation of Civil
Rights By vaig [sic] word and action By taking of other's
Jurisprudence of Jurisdictional in life.” (Doc. 1). To
the extent that plaintiff generally alleges racial slurs when
he was employed in the early 2000's, his factual
allegations do not state any plausible employment
discrimination claim. His allegations establish that he has
not been employed by the defendant for several years.
THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for
failure to state a plausible claim upon which relief can be