United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C §
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Antonio Hudson filed a pro se complaint against Chief United
States District Judge Denise Hood, United States District
Judge Arthur Tarnow, United States Circuit Judge Alice
Batchelder, United States District Judge Peter Economus,
United States Supreme Court Clerk Scott Harris, United States
Supreme Court Case Manager Clayton Higgins, Michigan Governor
Rick Snyder, the Michigan Department of Corrections, and
Michigan Parole Board Member Michael Eagen. Hudson alleges
violations of a variety of statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 2254;
28 U.S.C. § 2244; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985(2), (3); 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332; 28 U.S.C. § 1343(2), (3), (4); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b)(2)(c); 18 U.S.C. § 241, 242; Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents; the Habeas Corpus Act; the
RICO Act; and Title Six of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Additionally, Hudson alleges numerous violations of the
United States Constitution: Article 1, Section 9, Cl. 2; and
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth,
Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Hudson seeks $106,
000, 000 in damages. For the following reasons, the Court
will grant Hudson's application to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the complaint.
1990, a Michigan court convicted Hudson of multiple crimes:
two counts of kidnapping, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.89;
first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.520B; and assault with a dangerous weapon, Mich. Comp.
Laws § 750.84. ECF 2, PgID 47. He was sentenced to 15 to
30 years imprisonment. He petitioned a federal court for a
writ of habeas corpus. After 10 years of litigation, the
court denied Hudson's petition. See Hudson v.
Kapture, Case No. 2:99-cv-73834 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 15,
1999) (Tarnow, J., presiding). The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Id. at ECF 205. As a prisoner, Hudson filed a §
1983 and Bivens claim against Judge Tarnow and
Governor Snyder (and other federal and state officials),
alleging statutory and constitutional violations based on the
denial of his habeas petition. See Hudson v. Tarnow, et
al., Case No. 2:13-cv-12604 (Economus, J., presiding).
This case was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a
claim. Id. at ECF 89. After Hudson's release
from custody, he filed the present complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must summarily dismiss
any in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such
relief. When reviewing a complaint under § 1915(e),
however, the Court must grant a "liberal construction to
pro se filings." Jones v. Caruso, 569 F.3d 258,
263 (6th Cir. 2009). And the Court must accept a pro se
plaintiff's factual allegations as true, unless they are
"irrational or wholly incredible." Patterson v.
Godward, 370 F.App'x 608, 609 (6th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33
(1992)). But "[t]he leniency granted to pro se
[litigants] . . . is not boundless." Martin v.
Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004).
complaint is frivolous where plaintiff failed to present a
claim with an arguable or rational basis in law or in
fact." Perry v. Rose, 205 F.3d 1341 (6th Cir.
2000) (unpublished table decision). For example, "an in
forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or
previously litigated claims may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(i) as frivolous or malicious."
Cummings v. Mason, No. 1:11-CV-649, 2011 WL 2745937,
at *1 (W.D. Mich. July 13, 2011); see, e.g., McWilliams
v. State of Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997)
("[R]epetitious litigation of virtually identical causes
of action may be dismissed under § 1915 as frivolous or
malicious.") (quotations omitted); Cato v. United
States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting
that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits dismissal of a complaint
"that merely repeats pending or previously litigated
complaint is duplicative when the "parties and available
relief do not significantly differ from an earlier-filed
action." Cummings, 2011 WL 2745937, at *2.
"Although complaints may not significantly differ, they
need not be identical." Id. (quotations
omitted). For example, a complaint that "repeats the
same factual allegations" against "different
defendants" may be dismissed as duplicative.
Id. (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d
1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)).
Hudson's complaint is substantively identical to the
claim he filed nearly four years ago. See Hudson v.
Tarnow, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-12604 (E.D. Mich. Sept.
22, 2014). In the earlier-filed case, Hudson brought a claim
under § 1983 and Bivens against Judge Tarnow,
Governor Snyder, the Michigan Department of Corrections, and
other federal and state officials. Id. He alleged
that the denial of his habeas petition violated his civil
rights. The prior court decided Hudson's claim on the
merits: the doctrine of judicial immunity barred Hudson's
claims against the federal defendants, and Eleventh Amendment
and qualified immunity barred his claims against the Michigan
defendants. Id. at ECF 89. The prior court denied
Hudson's application to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Id. at ECF
present complaint does not significantly differ from his
earlier-filed suit. He repeats the same factual allegations
against Judge Tarnow, Governor Snyder, and the Michigan
Department of Corrections, and adds Judges Hood, Batchelder,
and Economus, Supreme Court Clerk Harris, United States
Supreme Court Case Manager Higgins, and Michigan Parole Board
Member Eagen as defendants. And Hudson's complaint
repeats his previously-litigated claim that federal and state
officials violated his civil rights during the litigation of
his petition for habeas corpus. Although he added six
defendants, his present claim is substantively identical to
his earlier-filed claim. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss
the complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous or
malicious. The Court also finds that an appeal would be
frivolous and could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a)(3). Therefore the Court will deny Hudson leave
to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a).
it is hereby ORDERED that Hudson's Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis  is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that Hudson's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH
FURTHER ORDERED that Hudson is DENIED leave to proceed in