The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TYRONE HURT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-CV-721-SEP
)
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 (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. USA, et al., 4:20-cv-648-
SRC (E.D. Mo. May 8, 2020); Hurt v. Motel 6, et al., 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,
et al., 4:20-cv-722-SRC (E.D. Mo. May 21, 2020); Hurt v. U.S. Constitution, et al., 4:20-cv-723-JCH (E.D.
Mo. May 21, 2020); and Hurt v. U.S. Constitution, et al., 4:20-cv-736-NCC (E.D. Mo. May 29, 2020).
Additionally, a review of Plaintiff’s federal court filings indicates 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”); 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 three defendants: the U.S. Constitution, the American
People of the United States of America, and the Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution
and the World. 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. Doc. [1] at 1.
The Court cannot decipher exactly what Plaintiff is alleging in his “Statement of the Facts
of the Case” because the complaint is almost entirely illegible. Id. at 2. It appears Plaintiff asserts
claims involving the “coronavirus crisis” and the “national epidemic of gun violence.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff seems to be requesting compliance with “humanitarian order and world order.” Id. at 2-
3. Plaintiff does not assert any facts specific to himself or any injury he has suffered. Nor does
he describe any events that occurred within this judicial district. For relief, Plaintiff seeks one
billion dollars in damages. Id. at 4.
Discussion
Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from multiple 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 it does not appear, nor does Plaintiff allege,
that all defendants reside in Missouri. Moreover, there is no indication that any events or omissions
that could be understood to give rise to any claim occurred in the Eastern District of Missouri. In
sum, none of the requirements of § 1391 are present in this case and venue is therefore improper.
The 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 because Plaintiff’s allegations are factually frivolous.
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.” Jd. 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.” Jd. Here, Plaintiff's complaint is incoherent and provides no basis for how
Defendants violated his constitutional rights. The fact that Plaintiff seeks damages from the “U.S.
Constitution,” all “American People,” and the “Founding Fathers of ... the World,” demonstrates
delusional and irrational allegations. Plaintiffs complaint is 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).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
An Order of Dismissal shall be filed with this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 10th day of June, 2020.
bok Efe
SARAHE.PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE