Johnny Lee Richmond v. City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin, United States of America, U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Wisconsin, and John and/or Jane Doe Officials

Summary

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin overruled Johnny Lee Richmond’s objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, adopted the recommendation, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court found the pro se complaint nearly incomprehensible, lacking specific factual allegations and an identifiable federal cause of action, and noted that several defendants were immune from suit. The court also imposed a five-year filing bar covering most papers filed by Richmond in the district, subject to stated exceptions.

Holdings

1. The district court must review de novo the portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a party objects and may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation.
2. A court must dismiss an action proceeding in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant.
3. A complaint must provide fair notice of the claim and its grounds and must allege facts supporting a cognizable federal claim or another basis for federal jurisdiction; conclusory references to legal doctrines and constitutional provisions are insufficient.
4. Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend was warranted because amendment would be futile.
5. A five-year bar prohibiting Richmond from filing papers in the Eastern District of Wisconsin was warranted based on his extensive ten-year history of frivolous and baseless litigation, subject to stated exceptions for appeals, exigent circumstances, criminal cases in which he is a defendant, and habeas corpus applications.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the magistrate judge properly recommended dismissal of the pro se complaint after screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
2. Whether the complaint stated a comprehensible claim providing defendants fair notice and establishing federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.
3. Whether dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend was appropriate because amendment would be futile.
4. Whether Richmond's litigation history warranted a five-year filing bar in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Disposition

dismissed