Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bruce v. State

May 30, 2008

SHANE M. BRUCE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas W. Phillips United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This pro se action was commenced on December 10, 2007, pursuant to the granting of plaintiff's in forma pauperis application [Doc. 2]. Since then the parties have filed numerous motions and other pleadings, including Defendants State of Tennessee and Robert Carter Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4] and supporting memorandum, Motion to Dismiss by Defendants State of Tennessee and Chancellor Billy Joe White [Doc. 9] and supporting memorandum, plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Billy Joe White [Doc. 11], plaintiff's Motion to Join the Attorney General's Office and Response [Doc. 14], and defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 22]. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. While the purpose of that section is to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the courts, Adkins v. E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342 (1948), it is not a tool for freewheeling abuse thereof. Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court dismiss a case at any time if the court determines that "the action or appeal ... is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006).

This action is both frivolous and malicious. In one thirty-three-page pleading alone [Doc. 14], plaintiff, inter alia, discusses the Franco-Prussian war, housing in New York, the Great Chicago fire, and prostitution; compares the respective capabilities of coyotes and crows; and delves into anecdotes regarding his urine and soda bottles. Plaintiff also expresses his views that divorce proceedings take place in a separate court and enlightens the court as to why he (ostensibly) changed his surname. In another pleading [Doc. 16], plaintiff discusses Babylon and Mesopotamia. This brief insight into plaintiff's pleadings clearly demonstrates that plaintiff's action is frivolous.

Further, the court finds that the action is malicious. Again in his thirty-three-page Motion to Join the Attorney General's Office to the Defendant and Response [Doc. 14], plaintiff frequently curses both the court and the bar. Indeed, all of his pleadings address defendants and their counsel with utter disrespect.

In short, plaintiff appears merely to seek a forum in which to expound his various world views. Unfortunately for plaintiff, this court is no such forum. Accordingly this matter is hereby DISMISSED as frivolous and malicious pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080530

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.