United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JEROME S. ADAMS, Plaintiff,
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants.
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND ENJOINING PLAINTIFF
FROM FILING FURTHER COMPLAINTS WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT BY THE
COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Jerome S. Adams, proceeding pro se, has filed a
complaint naming the President of the United States and 128
others as defendants. Defendants, broadly categorized, range
from politicians and other political figures, celebrities
(movie stars, music stars and reality TV stars), large
corporations and their executives, law firms, sports figures,
and several Ferrari dealerships.
asks to proceed in forma pauperis. Based upon the
information in the Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, GRANTS
plaintiff in forma pauperis status. For the reasons
that follow, however, the complaint will be dismissed for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state
a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
§ 1915 (e)(2) a Court may dismiss a complaint at any
time if it determines that the case is frivolous or
malicious, that the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint
"is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). Moreover, a federal court is always
“under an independent obligation to examine their own
jurisdiction, ” FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of
Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990), and a federal court
may not entertain an action over which it has no
jurisdiction. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v.
Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701
(1982). Indeed, a court is required to dismiss an action at
any time if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); See Wagenknecht v.
United States, 533 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir.2008)
(“a district court may sua sponte dismiss an
action when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”).
Court must read pro se complaints indulgently,
see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and
accept plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are
clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Court has read the complaint. It is virtually unintelligible.
As best as can be gleaned, plaintiff says that certain
defendants interfered with a court case he had against
Walmart and other defendants extorted money from him that he
received from his lawsuit. He seeks over a trillion dollars
in damages. Even liberally construing the complaint,
plaintiff has failed to allege any factual grounds asserting
a plausible claim against any of the defendants. Plaintiff
has also failed to allege any legal authority as to why
plaintiff may recover from any of the defendants. Overall,
the Court cannot discern a viable legal claim or the basis
for federal jurisdiction. As such, the complaint must be
Court also notes that plaintiff filed two similar lawsuits in
this district, in June of 2017 and December of 2017. Both
were dismissed as frivolous. See Adams v. Trump, et
al., 17-11925, Adams v. Wray, et al., 17-13958.
In case no. 17-13958 the Court cautioned that
“Plaintiff may be enjoined from filing additional
lawsuits if he continues to abuse the judicial
process.” (Doc. 4 in case no. 17-13858 at p. 2).
Sixth Circuit has held that district courts may properly
enjoin vexatious litigants from filing further actions
against a defendant without first obtaining leave of court.
Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269
(6th Cir. 1998); See also, Filipas v.
Lemons, 690 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 1987). "There
is nothing unusual about imposing prefiling restrictions in
matters with a history of repetitive or vexatious
litigation." Id. at 269. A prefiling review
requirement is a judicially imposed remedy whereby a
plaintiff must obtain leave of the district court to assure
that the claims are not frivolous or harassing. See
e.g., Ortman v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 807, 811 (6th
Cir. 1996). Often, a litigant is merely attempting to
collaterally attack prior unsuccessful ...