United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Stadtmueller, U.S. District Judge.
filed a pro se complaint taking issue with various
actions of Defendants. (Docket #1). This matter comes before
the court on Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Docket #2). Notwithstanding the payment of
any filing fee, the Court must dismiss a complaint if it
raises claims that are “frivolous or malicious, ”
that is, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989); Hutchinson ex rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d
895, 900 (7th Cir. 1997). The 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. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
“Malicious, ” although sometimes treated as a
synonym for “frivolous, ” “is more usefully
construed as intended to harass.” Lindell v.
McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (7th Cir. 2003)
complaint is largely incoherent. The Court gathers that
Plaintiff's concerns center on Defendants' role in
shutting down her daycare facility. (Docket #1 at 2-3).
Despite her difficult-to-follow allegations, Plaintiff
herself is no stranger to this Court. In fact, she has filed
a complaint in this District alleging similar underlying
facts three prior times in the previous five years.
Bradley v. Division of Children and Family
[Bradley I], 12-CV-1244-RTR; Bradley v. Sabree
et al. [Bradley II], 14-CV-429-JPS; Bradley
v. Sabree et al. [Bradley III], 15-CV-1384-PP.
In each prior case, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed
with prejudice. Bradley I, (Docket #17); Bradley
II, (Docket #23); Bradley III, (Docket #21).
Plaintiff appealed each dismissal and the Court of Appeals
affirmed in each instance. Bradley I, (Docket #25);
Bradley II, (Docket #35); Bradley III,
the prior complaints were rejected upon a considered analysis
of numerous grounds for dismissal, including the court's
jurisdiction, application of preclusion doctrines, failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, and the failure to state
viable claims. The Court will not allow Plaintiff to continue
to waste scarce taxpayer resources occupying its time with
repeated filings concerning the same subject matter which
warrant dismissal for the same reasons. This is the
definition of frivolity and Plaintiff's complaint will be
dismissed on that ground.
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must
be denied, in any event. (Docket #2). The privilege to
proceed without payment of costs and fees “is reserved
to the many truly impoverished litigants who…would
remain without legal remedy if such privilege were not
afforded to them.” Brewster v. N. Am. Van Lines,
Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). Plaintiff's
motion reveals that her monthly income exceeds her expenses
by over $500.00. (Docket #2 at 2). Plaintiff also has
substantial equity in her home. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff's only explanation for not wanting to pay the
filing fee is that her previous cases have been dismissed.
Id. at 4. Because it is not clear that Plaintiff
would be unable “to provide [her]self…with the
necessities of life, ” if required to pay the filing
fee, the Court cannot find her indigent. Adkins v. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).
filed a number of nonsensical motions subsequent to
submitting her complaint and motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Docket #5, #6, #7, and #8). Each will be
denied as moot. Finally, the Court of Appeals has warned
Plaintiff that her continued frivolous appeals may result in
sanctions. Bradley III, (Docket #35 at 4). This
Court now provides the same warning. If Plaintiff continues
to submit frivolous filings, she may be subject to sanctions,
including monetary penalties or a general prohibition on
filing in this District. See Support Sys. Int'l, Inc.
v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Docket #2) be and the
same is hereby DENIED;
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's
miscellaneous motions (Docket #5, #6, #7, and #8) be and the
same are hereby DENIED as moot;
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same
is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous; and
COURT FURTHER CERTIFIES that any appeal from this
matter would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) unless Plaintiff ...