Mills v. Bluth

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied Anthony Mills's application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. The court dismissed his complaint as frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), finding that it failed to state a plausible claim and was part of a widespread pattern of nearly identical filings against Arlene Bluth.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a claim because, even when liberally construed in light of the plaintiff's pro se status, it contained insufficient factual matter, did not identify the parties or explain the basis for federal jurisdiction, and provided no context supporting the alleged due-process conspiracy.
2. The complaint was malicious because filing the same complaint, containing the same three bare allegations, in numerous federal courts within a few days demonstrated an intent to harass the defendant, the courts, or both.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief when it contained only conclusory allegations and no factual context.
2. Whether the complaint was malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it was one of numerous substantially identical complaints filed in federal courts within days of one another.
3. Whether the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied and the complaint dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Disposition

dismissed