Jordan v. Bush

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

PRINCE TERRELL DARRON JORDAN

a/k/a TRACY HALSELL, Case No. 1:23-cv-201

Plaintiff,

Hopkins, J.

vs. Litkovitz, M.J.

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, et al., REPORT AND

Defendants. RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, has filed a pro se civil complaint against

Former President Bill Clinton, Former President George W. Bush, and Former First Lady and

Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton. (Doc. 1-1). By separate Order, plaintiff has been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

This matter is now before the Court for a sua sponte review of the complaint 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 Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 § 804, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

Screening of Complaint

A. Legal Standard

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma pauperis statute, seeking to

“lower judicial access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992).

In doing so, however, “Congress recognized 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. at 31 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To address this concern, Congress included subsection (e)(1) as part of

the statute, which provides in pertinent part:

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—

* * *

(B) the action or appeal—

(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Thus, § 1915(e) requires sua sponte

dismissal of an action upon the Court’s determination that the action is frivolous or malicious, or

upon determination that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

To properly state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must satisfy the

basic federal pleading requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See also

Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) standards to review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Under Rule

8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, Rule 8(a) “imposes legal and

factual demands on the authors of complaints.” 16630 Southfield Ltd., P’Ship v. Flagstar Bank,

F.S.B., 727 F.3d 502, 503 (6th Cir. 2013).

Although this pleading standard does not require “‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . [a]

pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

1 Formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

2

of action’” is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint will not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked

assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Instead, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), “a

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on

its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Facial plausibility is established “when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility of an inference depends

on a host of considerations, including common sense and the strength of competing explanations

for the defendant’s conduct.” Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d at 504 (citations omitted). A complaint

filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)

(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however, “‘courts

should not have to guess at the nature of the claim asserted.’” Frengler v. Gen. Motors, 482 F.

App’x 975, 976–77 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989)).

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that in 1996, he wrote to President Clinton and told him he

was being abused by Tarras Turney Truitt. (Doc. 1-1 at PAGEID 6). The complaint continues:

Mr. Clinton acted negligently; possibly making or helping make Beyonce J.

Knowles famous along with Shawn Jay Z Carter knowing that I would come later

and be owed large sums of money making claims that Beyonce & Michelle were

my older sisters & that I am a grandson to Michael Jordan & Casius Clay. I wrote

to Hillary Clinton in 2016/2017 already having a letter from former President

Barack H Obama indicating please know you will remain on my mind. Recently,

Hillary Clinton sexually assaulted me three times I believe, her, her husband, and

George WH Bush acted negligent, racist, discriminative, & sexually assaulted me,

3

was complicit to murder, rob, rape, and deprive of life & the pursuit of happiness.

This is a in alienable right their crimes fall under section 2315.33 complicit to

murder, rape, bullying, terrorism, sexual assault, depriving, first amendment,

freedom of religion.…

The complaint continues in a similar vein. (Id.). Plaintiff seeks $51 million in damages.

C. Resolution

A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact if it contains factual allegations that are

“fantastic or delusional” or if it is based on legal theories that are indisputably meritless.

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28. Plaintiff’s pro se complaint is without an arguable basis in fact

over which this federal Court has subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint is largely

incomprehensible and contains fanciful allegations that “rise to the level of the irrational or the

wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33 (1992); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196,

1199 (6th Cir. 1990). In addition, the Court need not accept as true the legal conclusions

couched as factual allegations contained in the complaint. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Plaintiff’s complaint provides no factual content

or context from which the Court may reasonably infer that the defendant violated plaintiff’s

rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed as frivolous

and for failure to state a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Sanctions Recommendation

This is the seventh in a series of frivolous complaints filed by plaintiff over the past two

years. As recently noted by the Court in another of plaintiff’s cases, “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 recommends such dismissal.” Tracy Halsell,

a/k/a Terrell D. Jordon v. Cincinnati Police Dep’t, No. 1:23-cv-24, 2023 WL 312789, at *2

4

(S.D. Ohio Jan. 19, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 1971342 (S.D. Ohio

Feb. 13, 2023). In that case, plaintiff alleged that he was harassed and assaulted by President

Barack Obama when plaintiff was a minor student at Cincinnati State Technical and Community

College; that former public officials and celebrities “are all guilty of rape”; and that the

defendants – the Cincinnati Police Department and District of Columbia Police Department –

ignored plaintiff’s phone calls and hung up on him. The Court noted that plaintiff’s complaint

was his fifth in forma pauperis case that was subject to summary dismissal, and plaintiff should

be forewarned that his conduct may be considered to be vexatious.2 Id. On February 13, 2023,

District Judge Dlott adopted the Report and Recommendation, dismissed plaintiff’s case with

prejudice, and issued the following admonition: “Plaintiff is WARNED that filing additional

frivolous lawsuits in this District Court may result in sanctions or a determination that Plaintiff is

a vexatious litigant.” Halsell, 2023 WL 1971342, at *1.

On March 13, 2023, one month following this warning, plaintiff filed another frivolous

lawsuit, and the undersigned recommended that plaintiff be sanctioned in that case. See Jordan

v. Pinkett-Smith, No. 1:23-cv-137, 2023 WL 2607276, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2023) (report

and recommendation). Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation remain

pending before the district judge.

Plaintiff has again failed to heed the Court’s warning and filed the instant frivolous

2 The Court cited the following cases, each of which contains similarly wholly implausible and irrational

allegations: Halsell v. People Ready, No. 1:21-cv-763, 2022 WL 178519 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 20, 2022), report and

recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 6922115 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 12, 2022); Prince Terrell D. Jordan, a/k/a Tracy D.

Halsell v. Jeff Wyler Hyundai Fairfield, No. 1:22-cv-771, 2023 WL 312786, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 19, 2023) (Report

and Recommendation pending); Prince Terrell D. Jordan, a/k/a Tracy D. Halsell v. USA, No. 1:22-cv-534, 2022

WL 4493915, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2022) (Report and Recommendation pending); Tracy Halsell v. Obama,

No. 1:22-cv-536, 2022 WL 4368262, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022

WL 16964464, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 16, 2022).

5

lawsuit. Therefore, sanctions are appropriate.

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. As a result, district courts have the “inherent authority to issue an injunctive

order to prevent prolific litigants from filing harassing and vexatious pleadings.” Brown v.

Foley, No. 20-3272, 2020 WL 8921407, at *2 (6th Cir. July 27, 2020) (citing Feathers v.

Chevron U.S.A., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998)). A court may impose pre-filing restrictions

as a mechanism to stop the constant flow of meritless and repetitive complaints being filed on the

same or similar matters. Feathers, 141 F.3d at 269. The Feathers court recognized there is

“nothing unusual about imposing prefiling restrictions in matters with a history of repetitive or

vexatious litigation.” Id. 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. D.C. Ct. of Appeals, 506

U.S. 1, 3 (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).

At this juncture, plaintiff’s actions rise to the level of prolific and vexatious litigation.

See Feathers, 141 F.3d at 269 (issuing an injunction to “stanch the ongoing flow of meritless and

repetitive” cases). Issuing yet another warning to this particular plaintiff clearly would be of no

benefit either to plaintiff or to this Court, since he seems unable to comply with the Court’s

warnings or to fully comprehend that his claims are fantastic and irrational. Therefore, the

undersigned recommends classifying plaintiff as a vexations litigator such that pre-filing

6

restrictions should be imposed before any additional complaints will be accepted by this Court.

See Marbly v. Wheatley, 87 F. App’x 535 (6th Cir. 2004) (mandating that pro se plaintiff first

seek leave of court prior to filing a lawsuit); Stewart v. Fleet Fin., 229 F.3d 1154, 2000 WL

1176881 (6th Cir. Aug. 10, 2000) (requiring harassing and vexatious pro se litigator to file

$25,000 bond prior to filing suit is not an abuse of discretion).

In terms of the level of pre-filing restrictions to be imposed, the undersigned notes that

requiring court review of any proposed future filings by plaintiff would likely result in a further

waste of scarce judicial resources. See Moore v. Hillman, 2006 WL 1313880, at *5 (W.D.

Mich. May 12, 2006) (citing Sassower v. Am. Bar Assn., 33 F.3d 733, 736 (7th Cir. 1994)).

Plaintiff has demonstrated an inability to curtail his litigation practices. With respect to this

unique category of abusive litigators, courts have struggled to find an appropriate remedy that

does not expend additional resources in the course of judicial gatekeeping. Thus, courts have

restricted pro se litigants from filing further pro se actions without a certification from the Court

or an attorney that the claims asserted are not frivolous and that the suit is not brought for any

improper purpose. See Ortman v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 807, 811 (6th Cir. 1992); Sawchyn v. Parma

Muni. Ct., 114 F.3d 1188 (6th Cir. 1997) (unpublished), 1997 WL 321112, *1; May v.

Guckenberger, No. 1:00-cv-794, 2001 WL 1842462, *6 (S.D. Ohio 2001). The Court finds that

a similar sanction is appropriate in this case to deter plaintiff from filing future vexatious and

frivolous lawsuits in this Court. Accordingly, plaintiff should be declared a harassing and

vexatious litigator and therefore be enjoined and prohibited from filing any additional complaints

in the Southern District of Ohio unless such complaints have first been certified as non-frivolous

7

by an attorney in good standing in this Court or the jurisdiction in which he or she is admitted, or

alternatively, are accompanied by payment of the full filing fee.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B);

2. Plaintiff Terrell Darron Jordan a/k/a Tracy Halsell be declared a vexatious litigator, and

therefore be ENJOINED AND PROHIBITED from filing any additional complaints in

the Southern District of Ohio UNLESS the complaint has first been certified as non-

frivolous by an attorney in good standing in this Court or the jurisdiction in which he or

she is admitted, or alternatively, is accompanied by payment of the full filing fee;

3. The Clerk of Court be specifically DIRECTED not to accept any such pleadings from

plaintiff absent compliance with the above restrictions and to dispose of such documents

accordingly;

4. The Court 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 deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See

Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v.

United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).

Karen L. Litkovitz

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

PRINCE TERRELL DARRON JORDAN

a/k/a TRACY HALSELL, Case No. 1:23-cv-201

Plaintiff,

Hopkins, J.

vs. Litkovitz, M.J.

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, et al.,

Defendants.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of

the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the

proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on

timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report

objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If

the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the

record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the

record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems

sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another

party=s objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. 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).

9