The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TYRONE HURT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-CV-723 JCH
)
U.S. CONSTITUTION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of a complaint filed by self-represented
plaintiff Tyrone Hurt. Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee, nor filed an application to proceed
in the district court without payment of the filing fee. Instead, plaintiff included a “Motion for
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis” within the body of the complaint. The Court has reviewed
plaintiff’s motion and will allow plaintiff to proceed without paying the filing fee in this
proceeding. Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss this action for
improper venue and as factually frivolous under Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
Background
Plaintiff currently resides in the District of Columbia. This action is one of fifteen self-
represented civil actions he has initiated in forma pauperis in this Court since January 21, 2020.1
1 See Hurt v. Bailey Realtor, Inc. LLC, 4:20-cv-99 NAB (E.D. Mo. Jan. 21, 2020); Hurt v. D.C. Board of
Parole, et al., 4:20-cv-100 PLC (E.D. Mo. Jan. 21, 2020); Hurt v. American College Dictionary, et al.,
4:20-cv-101 RLW (E.D. Mo. Jan. 21, 2020); Hurt v. U.S. Constitution, et al., 4:20-cv-525 RLW (E.D. Mo.
Apr. 13, 2020); Hurt v. U.S. Constitution, et al., 4:20-cv-527 SRC (E.D. Mo. Apr. 13, 2020); Hurt v. USA,
et al., 4:20-cv-645 AGF (E.D. Mo. May 11, 2020); Hurt v. USA, et al., 4:20-cv-646-SRC (E.D. Mo. May
8, 2020); Hurt v. USA, et al., 4:20-cv-647 AGF (E.D. Mo. May 11, 2020); Hurt v. United States of America,
et al., 4:20-cv-648 SRC (E.D. Mo. May 8, 2020); Hurt v. Motel 6, 4:20-cv-649 SRC (E.D.Mo May 11,
2020); Hurt v. American College Dictionary, et al., 4:20-cv-667 NCC (E.D. Mo. May 18, 2020); Hurt v.
U.S. Constitution, 4:20-cv-721 SEP (E.D.Mo May 21, 2020); Hurt v. U.S. Constitution, 4:20-cv-722 SRC
(E.D.Mo May 21, 2020); Hurt v. U.S. Constitution, 4:20-cv-723 JCH (E.D.Mo May 21, 2020); Hurt v. U.S.
Additionally, review of plaintiff’s federal court filings indicate that he has filed numerous cases in
district courts across the United States. See Hurt v. Civil Rights Lawyer, No. 3:17-cv-39-DJH
(W.D. Ky. March 22, 2017) (noting that instant case was “not the first time Hurt has brought in
this Court a disjointed complaint with no connection to this jurisdiction, and, in fact, Hurt has a
pattern of doing so in courts across the country”); and Hurt v. D.C. Board of Parole, et al., No.
1:13-cv-5365-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2013) (noting that plaintiff has “filed hundreds of lawsuits
around the country that [have] been dismissed as frivolous”). Plaintiff’s propensity for filing
multiple, frivolous lawsuits has subjected him to pre-filing injunctions in numerous federal courts.
See Hurt v. Nat’l Museum of African-American History & Culture, No. 5:17-cv-97-H (E.D.N.C.
May 30, 2017) (collecting cases). He has been barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Hurt v. United States, No. 1:19-cv-2785-
UNA (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2019), and barred from proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Hurt v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 544 F.3d
308, 311 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action against the United States Constitution and the United States of
America.
The complaint is almost entirely illegible. It appears plaintiff asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330-1332, and 42 U.S.C. § 1975. Plaintiff
seeks $5 million in damages. Plaintiff does not provide any other facts or describe any events that
occurred within this judicial district.
Discussion
Constitution, 4:20-cv-736 NCC (E.D.Mo May 29, 2020).
Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from two defects. First, plaintiff has alleged no basis upon
which to conclude that venue lies in this Court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action
may be brought in: (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property
that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may
otherwise be brought, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the Court’s personal
jurisdiction. If venue is improper, the Court must either dismiss the action or, if it is in the interest
of justice, transfer the action to the proper district. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Plaintiff resides in the District of Columbia and none of the defendants appear to reside in
Missouri. Moreover, there is no indication that any events or omissions that could be understood
to give rise to any claim occurred within this judicial district. In sum, none of the requirements of
§ 1391 are present in this case and venue is therefore improper. This Court may either dismiss the
action or, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer the case to the district in which it could have
been brought. Here, it is not in the interest of justice to transfer this case.
Second, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint filed
in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action
is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
328 (1989). The term “‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable
legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Id. A court can properly dismiss an
action if the allegations in the complaint are found to be “clearly baseless.” Denton, 504 U.S. at
32-33 (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. 319). Allegations are clearly baseless if they are “fanciful,”
“fantastic,” or “delusional,” or if they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible.” Id. Here, plaintiff’s complaint is incoherent, provides no basis for how defendants
violated his constitutional rights, and contains allegations that are delusional and factually
frivolous under Denton. As a result, the Court will dismiss this action as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for
improper venue and as factually frivolous under Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate order of dismissal will be entered
herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 5th day of June, 2020.
\s\ Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE