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. MMHI (Memphis Mental Health Institution)

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

September 23, 2019

MICHAEL MATTOX, Plaintiff,
v.
MMHI (MEMPHIS MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTION) Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

          DIANE K. VESCOVO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On August 9, 2019, the plaintiff, Michael Mattox, filed a pro se complaint against Memphis Mental Health Institution (“MMHI”) titled “Habeas Corpus.” (Compl., ECF No. 1.) 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. Or. 2013-05, Apr. 29, 2013.)

         Accompanying the complaint was a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) Mattox filed a corrected motion to proceed in forma pauperis on September 5, 2019. (ECF No. 6.) The information set forth in the affidavit in support of the corrected motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis satisfies Mattox's burden of demonstrating that he is unable to pay the civil filing fee. Accordingly, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

         For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that Mattox's complaint be dismissed sua sponte because it fails to state a claim.

         I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

         Mattox's three-page, hand-written pro se complaint contains very little factual information. Mattox alleges that he was “seized [without] a warrant [on] approximately June 28, 2019.” (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) Mattox asserts that there “is no evidence” of Mattox being violent toward himself or others which he argues “is the prerequisite” to being lawfully detained in a mental institution. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Mattox also seeks to enjoin federal judges from having “absolute immunity, ” and suggests that federal judges have colluded to have him confined at MMHI. (Id. at ¶ 5.) This confinement, Mattox argues, violates the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id.)

         II. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

         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 granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune ...

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.