Halsell v. Cincinnati Police Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

TRACY HALSELL,

a/k/a Terrell D. Jordan Case No. 1:23-cv-24

Plaintiff, Dlott, J.

Bowman, M.J.

v.

CINCINNATI POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

By separate Order issued this date, Plaintiff Tracy Halsell, also known as Terrell

D. Jordan, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. The complaint itself is now before the Court for a sua sponte review to determine

whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous,

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For

the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the complaint be dismissed.

I. General Screening Authority

Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint

if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31

(1992); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous

when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or

law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898

F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis when the

defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which

clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis

when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly

incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The Court need not accept

as true factual allegations that are “fantastic or delusional” in reviewing a complaint for

frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S.

at 328).

Congress has also authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints which fail to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii).

Although a plaintiff's pro se complaint must be “liberally construed” and “held to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” the complaint must “give

the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007) (internal citation and quotation omitted)). The complaint “must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at

570); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010)(“dismissal standard

articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to state a claim” under

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1)).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept

all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion

couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain,

478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual

allegations,” it must provide “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-

me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading

that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders

“naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id. at 557.

II. Analysis

A. Review of Plaintiff’s Prior Litigation in this Court

The same Plaintiff recently has filed multiple complaints that either have been

dismissed with prejudice on initial screening, or as to which a pending Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommends such dismissal. See e.g., Case No. 1:21-cv-763-

MRB-SKB (R&R filed on 1/20/22 recommending dismissal on initial screening, adopted

on 10/12/22); Case No. 1:22-cv-534-DRC-KLL (pending R&R filed on 9/28/22

recommending dismissal on initial screening); Case No. 1:22-cv-536-MRB-PBS (R&R

filed on 9/21/22 recommending dismissal on initial screening, adopted on 11/16/22); Case

No. 1:22-cv-771-JPH-SKB (R&R filed herewith recommending dismissal on initial

screening). Because the above-captioned case constitutes the fifth case filed by Plaintiff

that is subject to summary dismissal, Plaintiff should be forewarned that his conduct may

be considered to be vexatious.

The repeated filing of frivolous lawsuits by vexatious litigators is a well-recognized

problem in the federal courts because such filings require a significant expenditure of

limited judicial resources. The Sixth Circuit recognizes the Court “has the authority to

issue an injunctive order to prevent prolific and vexatious litigants from filing pleadings

without first meeting pre-filing restrictions.” Stewart v. Fleet Financial, 229 F.3d 1154,

2000 WL 1176881 (6th Cir., August 10, 2000) (citing Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., 141

F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir.1998)); Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir.1987).

Without doubt, a litigant who files a case without merit wastes the resources of the court

and the named defendants. See e.g., Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506

U.S. 1, 3, 113 S.Ct. 397 (1992) (noting that every frivolous paper filed causes some drain

on the court's limited resources); Support Systems Int'l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th

Cir. 1995) (noting that litigants who repeatedly file frivolous papers clog court proceedings

and burden judges and their staff to the detriment of parties having meritorious claims).

As stated, this is the fifth case filed by Plaintiff in this Court that has been found to

be subject to summary dismissal on initial screening. The undersigned recognizes that

some litigants may be unable to comprehend that their claims are fantastic or delusional.

Nevertheless, the undersigned recommends issuing a clear warning to Plaintiff that if he

continues to file complaints in this Court that are subject to summary dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or under Apple v. Glenn, he may be considered to be a

vexatious litigator and subjected to sanctions and/or pre-filing restrictions.

B. Review of the Pending Complaint

In this case, the complaint identifies two Defendants: (1) the Cincinnati Police

Department in Cincinnati, Ohio, and (2) the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police

Department in Washington, DC. (Doc. 1-1 at 1, PageID 4). A handwritten “Statement of

Claim” on the standard form used by pro se litigants states, in relevant part:

Defendant parties both ignored phone calls, hung up in my face, took me to

the psych unit for making a rape report on Rakeem Brown. Robert Hall

issued a nuisance citation as calls of harassment were being made.

14th Amendment; Equal Protection

(Doc. 1-1 at 3, PageID 6). As relief, Plaintiff wants this Court “to order both CPD and DC

Police to pay the plaintiff $1 million each totaling $2 million.” (Doc. 1-1 at 4, PageID 7).

The handwritten portion of the form is signed but not dated. (Id.)

Appended to the complaint form is an unsigned additional typed page that contains

the following additional allegations.

I was continually harassed by Former President personating President

Barack H Obama. Personating President Barack H Obama could be guilty

of rape. Former First Lady Hillary Clinton personating First Lady or

Secretary of State knew her husband Former President Bill Clinton had

received a letter from me and knew that Beyonce was my sister long before

I knew that she knew this. Since this is true it is brought to testimony that

Former President Barack H Obama indulged in sexual assault to a minor in

the year of 2004 at Cincinnati State Technical and Community College.

Former President Barack H Obama continually aided and abetted sexual

assault, he continually aided and abetted sexual harassment, he continually

aided and abetted harassment, aggravated menacing, conspiracy to

murder and kidnap, rape and terrorism.

Barack Obama insinuated that I would receive $20 Million then aided and

abetted a number of felonious crimes. Cincinnati Police was contacted as

well as Cincinnati LGBT Liaisons and DC police. All of them continued to

ignore my phone calls and hang up on me including White House personnel.

I am suing the DC police Department and Cincinnati Police Department for

one million each totaling two million for both departments to pay 1 million

dollars.

Former Barack H Obama has continually harassed me and gotten away

with it. Has continually aided and abetted sexual assault and rape and

sexual harassment on someone who has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I

have continually called the police because of his presence, he has

continually supported child molestors [sic] Stefanie Spears, Mr. Tony

Owens, and rapist Rakeem Brown. This is the reason I also am suing the

Cincinnati Police Department.

I have tried to file reports on Rakeem Brown, Antoine Steele, Rodrick

Thompson, Beyonce, Jay Z, TARRAS Truitt, Stefanie Spears, Tyler Jordan,

Tevin Lackey, Hillary Clinton, William Jordan, Anthony Coleman, William

Turney, who are all guilty of rape. Cincinnati Police has continually refused

to acknowledge my complaint. Former President Barack H Obama is guilty

of rape, to a minor, knowing that I was a minor the year I went to Cincinnati

State.

(Doc. 1-1 at 5, PageID 8).

The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted in this federal court. Plaintiff’s assertions are

incomprehensible and illogical. The complaint contains insufficient factual detail from

which this Court can discern any conceivable claim against either of the named

Defendants. Indeed, the complaint consists almost entirely of allegations that are

delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Accordingly, the

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and should be dismissed

under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s allegations lack sufficient factual detail to state any plausible claim

against either of the two named Defendants. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. This case be DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for

failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

2. The Court should certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing

reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation

would not be taken in good faith and therefore should deny Plaintiff leave to

appeal in forma pauperis;

3. Because the above-captioned case constitutes the fifth case initiated by

Plaintiff in forma pauperis as to which dismissal with prejudice has been

recommended for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Plaintiff

should be expressly warned that if he files additional cases subject to summary

dismissal on initial screening, he is likely to be deemed to be a

vexatious litigator and may be subjected to sanctions and/or pre-filing

restrictions.

s/Stephanie K. Bowman

Stephanie K. Bowman

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

TRACY HALSELL,

a/k/a Terrell D. Jordan Case No. 1:23-cv-24

Plaintiff, Dlott, J.

Bowman, M.J.

v.

CINCINNATI POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written

objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of

the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely

motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s)

of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support

of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN

(14) DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections

in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).