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.

Mattox v. MATA

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

March 8, 2019

MICHAEL MATTOX, Plaintiff,
v.
MATA (MEMPHIS AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY), Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTRACT PAGES AND ENTER A SEPARATE LAWSUIT AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ANNEX MORE INJUNCTIONS AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENTER EVIDENCE

          DIANE K. VESCOVO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On January 2, 2019, the plaintiff, Michael Mattox, filed a pro se complaint against MATA (Memphis Area Transit Authority), (“MATA”) titled “Injunction Lawsuit.” (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Additionally, Mattox filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), which the court granted on January 10, 2019, (ECF No. 6). On February 21, 2019, Mattox filed a series of documents titled “2244: Injunction Lawsuit, ” (ECF No. 7), some of which Mattox refiled as an attachment to a motion titled “Motion for Civil Lawsuit, ” which he filed on February 28, 2019, (ECF No. 8). In addition to the “Motion for Civil Lawsuit, ” on February 28, 2019, Mattox filed a “Motion to Annex More Injunctions, ” (ECF No. 9), and a “Motion to Enter Evidence, ” (ECF No. 10).

         This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for management and for all pretrial matters for determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate. (Admin. Order. 2013-05, Apr. 29, 2013.) For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed sua sponte. In addition, Mattox's “Motion for Civil Lawsuit, ” (ECF No. 8), “Motion to Annex More Injunctions, ” (ECF No. 9), and “Motion to Enter Evidence, ” (ECF No. 10), are denied.

         I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

         Mattox's pro se complaint contains very little factual information.[1] His sole factual allegation in the entire two-page complaint is that MATA “does not give [a] $1.75 receipt for their one-way ride, ” which Mattox “has used on occasion and needs for tax write offs for [his] business.” (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) Mattox claims in conclusory fashion that MATA committed the following constitutional violations:

8th amendment cruel & unusual punishment; 13th amendment slavery; 5th & 14th amendment due process rights.

(Id. at ¶ 2.)

         Mattox seeks punitive damages in the amount of one zillion dollars and injunctive relief in the form of a court order to “giv[e] receipts also for $1.75 ride” and to instate Mattox as the “Chief Executive Officer & President of Mata.” (Id. at ¶ 3.)

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Screening

         Pursuant to Local Rule 4.1(b)(2), service will not issue in a pro se case where the pro se plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis until the complaint has been screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The clerk is authorized to issue summonses to pro se litigants only after that review is complete and an order of the court issues. This report and recommendation will constitute the court's screening of Mattox's complaint.

         The court is required to screen in forma pauperis complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the action:

(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be ...

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.