Johnson v. Biden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION

ANDRE LEMAURIO JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No. 3:22-cv-00174

v. )

) JUDGE CAMPBELL

JOSEPH ROBINETTE )

BIDEN, JR., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiff Andre Lemaurio Johnson filed a pro se Complaint against President Joseph R.

Biden, Jr., nine senior United States officials, two Illinois state officials, and the Tennessee

Attorney General. (Doc. No. 1). The Court found that the Complaint did not include a “short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1),

or establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 6). Thus, the Court directed Plaintiff to

submit an Amended Complaint that: (1) “in a short, plain, and organized manner, sets forth

Plaintiff’s claim or claims against each Defendant and provides factual allegations sufficient to

show that Plaintiff has a plausible right to relief”; and (2) demonstrates federal subject-matter

jurisdiction by satisfying the requirements for diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction or asserting a

claim arising under federal law. Id. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply would result

in dismissal of the Complaint. Id. at 3. In addition, the Court specially cautioned Plaintiff against

again basing the Amended Complaint on “meritless rhetoric frequently espoused by tax protestors,

sovereign citizens, and self-proclaimed Moorish-Americans.” Id. (quoting United States v.

Coleman, 871 F.3d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 2017)).

In response, Johnson submitted an Amended Complaint that plainly fails to comply with

the Court’s Order. (Doc. No. 7). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 is intended to “make complaints

simpler, rather than more expansive.” Kuot v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. 1:16-cv-00006, 2018 WL

655158, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2018) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

Under Rule 8, “the only permissible pleading in a federal district court is a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief on any legally sustainable

grounds.” Dixon v. Metro Nashville Police Dep’t, No. 3:20-cv-00991, 2020 WL 7641190, at *4

(M.D. Tenn. Dec. 23, 2020) (quoting Kuot, 2018 WL 655158, at *1). “This is to avoid situations .

. . wherein the pleading is so verbose that the Court cannot identify with clarity the claim(s) of the

pleader and adjudicate such claim(s) understandingly on the merits.” Id.

Here, the Amended Complaint “is neither short nor plain. The allegations therein are not

simple, concise, and direct.” Kuot, 2018 WL 655158, at *2. To the contrary, the single-spaced,

fifty-one page document “veers from conclusory to disorganized,” and it is replete with confusing

or wholly-incomprehensible contentions arising from the very “meritless rhetoric” that plagued

the original Complaint.1 Id. Put simply, the Amended Complaint makes it far too difficult to

discern Plaintiff’s claims. See Brown v. Mastauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011) (“The

cannot create a claim which [Plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading.”). Thus, “responding to

the [Amended] Complaint would place an undue burden on Defendants, and—just as

importantly—the continuation of this action as currently devised would impose a huge burden on

the Court in attempting to manage this case.” Kuot, 2018 WL 655158, at *2; see also Schied v.

Daughtrey, No. 08-14944, 2008 WL 5422680, at *14 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2008) (“When faced

with voluminous pleadings, neither the Court nor opposing counsel should be required to expend

1 Plaintiff’s 797 pages of exhibits to the Complaint are also disorganized, unintelligible, and

largely irrelevant. (See Doc No. 7-1 to 7-19).

time and effort searching through large masses of conclusory, argumentative, evidentiary and other

extraneous allegations in order to discover whether the essentials of claims asserted can be found

in such a mélange.”). Such a complaint is subject to dismissal. See Kuot, 2018 WL 655158, at *1

(“Complaints that are too long, circuitous, disorganized, confusing, or argumentative may be

dismissed.”); Smith v. City of Chattanooga, No. 1:10-cv-206, 2010 WL 5257238, at *2 (E.D. Tenn.

Dec. 17, 2010) (dismissing complaint that is “replete with so much irrelevant information that the

Court is unable to determine the precise nature of [the plaintiff’s] claims”); Brown v. Knoxville

News-Sentinel, 41 F.R.D. 283, 283 (E.D. Tenn. 1966) (dismissing lengthy complaint because it

was “so prolix, loosely drawn, and involved as to be unintelligible”).

Plaintiff also has not made a serious attempt to demonstrate federal subject-matter

jurisdiction, relying instead on indecipherable references and bizarre contentions. As an example,

Plaintiff appears to suggest that the Court should exercise diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction

because the $75,000 jurisdictional amount is a “symbol” that “lacks specificity.” (Doc. No. 7 at

4). Likewise, Plaintiff’s esoteric references to various Constitutional provisions, historical

documents, and international treaties are unsupported by any relevant factual allegations.2 See id.

Plaintiff has neither met the requirements for diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction, see Caterpillar

Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) or stated a non-frivolous claim under federal law. Arbaugh

v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006).

2 The Complaint also invokes “admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.” (Doc. No. 1 at 3). However,

“[a]dmiralty cases are not brought into federal court under federal-question jurisdiction.” Lewis v. Foster,

No. CV-18-60-DLB-CJS, 2018 WL 4224445, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 5, 2018) (citing Romero v. Int’l

Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 378-79 (1959)). Rather, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1331(1), federal

courts have admiralty or maritime jurisdiction over civil cases with claims that “arise under a ‘maritime

contract.’” N.H. Ins. v. Home Sav. & Loan Co. of Youngstown, 581 F.3d 420, 423 (6th Cir. 2009). Whether

a contract qualifies as a maritime contract depends upon its nature and character, but “the true criterion is

whether [the contract] has reference to maritime service or maritime transactions.” Id. (quoting Norfolk S.

Ry. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 24 (2004)). Because Plaintiff makes no allegation of any kind regarding a

maritime contract, he has not demonstrated that Section 1331(1) confers jurisdiction on the Court.

In sum, the Amended Complaint is subject to dismissal because, despite clear instructions

from the Court, Plaintiff has not satisfied Rule 8(a) or shown that subject-matter jurisdiction exists.

Because Plaintiff has wholly failed to respond to his opportunity for compliance, Dixon, 2020 WL

7641190, at *5, prolonging this case would be inappropriate and futile. This case is therefore

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Finally, the Court “has inherent authority to issue an injunctive order to prevent prolific

litigants from filing harassing and vexatious pleadings.” Clemons v. DeWine, No. 19-3033, 2019

WL 7567197, at *3 (6th Cir. May 1, 2019). Plaintiff has now been cautioned against such conduct

in three actions brought against these and similar Defendants. Each time, the Court warned

Plaintiff that the “submission of pleadings comprised primarily of similar meritless rhetoric that

plainly fail to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules of Court may be

considered vexatious behavior subject to sanctions, including an appropriately tailored filing

restriction.” (Doc. No. 6); Johnson v. Rettig, Case No. 3:21-cv-431 (Doc. No. 18); Johnson v.

Rettig, Case No. 3:21-cv-750 (Doc. No. 8). There is no indication that Plaintiff has heeded these

warnings. Although sanctions have not issued to date, the Court’s patience is not limitless.

Accordingly, the submission of similar frivolous filings in this case or any new action may result

in a sua sponte injunctive order to prevent further harassing or vexatious conduct.

It is so ORDERED.

hl X. Cody

AleX Cpl

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE