Grimes v. Chiropractic

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          LESLIE R. HOFFMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

         This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

MOTION: APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS (LONG FORM) (Doc. No. 2)

FILED:September 23, 2019

THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND.

         On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff Jerome L. Grimes, appealing pro se, filed a complaint against Defendants Kirkman Chiropractic, Melanie LNU, Y. Wilson Tabs, and Cherrie LNU. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form), which has been construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. No. 2. The motion to proceed in fonna pauperis was referred to the undersigned.

         Plaintiff is no stranger to this Court. It appears that he has filed over twenty cases, some while he was incarcerated, and some thereafter, raising various complaints.^[1] He is also a well-known filer in other courts throughout the United States. See, e.g., Grimes v. Public Defender's Office, No. 6:16-cv-118-Orl-37GJK, Doc. No. 2, at 2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2016) (and cases cited therein). Accordingly, while it does not appear that Plaintiff is currently incarcerated, “the undersigned takes judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigator. ” Grimes v. Edward Kelly, Jr., No. 6:16-cv-268-Orl-18GJK, Doc. No. 5 (M.D. Fla. April 12, 2016).

         In the instant complaint, Plaintiff purports to bring a claim against the above-named Defendants for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. No. 1, at 3. His alleged rights violated include that:

These Chiropractors and Assistants Under Their Authorization had a Conflict of Interest and Direct Association to the State Actor(s) that Brutalized the plaintiff's person on the HEREIN, Federal Law Cause of Action of, August 17, 2019, extension of that violence, but this time on, September 10, 2019, Ricin Poison is suspected of being used against the plaintiff and discovered through In Pro Se Independent Investigation, which elevates this complaint to the Federal Jurisdiction Level of Medical.

Id. Plaintiff's factual allegations include that after a “Police/Sheriff Brutality Incident” on August 17, 2019, he received chiropractic treatment/electromagnetic shock back therapy, during which the technician (“Melanie (DOE)”) poured “dirty bomb ricin” on the back of Plaintiff's neck. Id. at 4. Plaintiff claims that upon independent investigation, he determined that Y. Wilson Talos was the “Fence of the Dirty Bomb Ricin Attack, ” but Y. Wilson Talos refused to provide Plaintiff the last name of the technician, Melanie. Id. He claims that “Cherrie” was “deliberately indifferent and tried to give immunity from prosecution for Dirty Bomb Ricin, and was insistent and alarmed of being caught for something so covert, which was fearful to those perpetrators in the commission of Post-09/11/01 covert violence of chemical warfare against civilian plaintiff, and in violation of the 1949 Geneva convention . . . .” Id. He claims he suffered blurred vision until he took a laxative, that he had a nagging cough, and that there was excessive blood from a damaged tooth. Id. at 5. He asks the Court to schedule alternative dispute resolution, to revoke Defendants' chiropractic license(s), and to award $110, 000.00 in damages for the “chemical warfare burn to the back of the plaintiff's neck.” Id. He includes with the complaint a copy of a treatment note from Kirkman Chiropractic on September 10, 2019. Id. at 7.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

         The Court must conduct a two-step inquiry when a plaintiff files a complaint and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. First, the Court must evaluate the plaintiff's financial status and determine whether he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Second, once the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff is a pauper, the Court must review the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) and dismiss the complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious, the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or the complaint seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i- iii).^[2] A complaint is frivolous within the meaning of § 1915(e)(2)(b) if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the allegations must show plausibility. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court ...