United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
JEROME L. GRIMES, Plaintiff,
KIRKMAN CHIROPRACTIC, MELANIE LNU, Y. WILSON TALOS and CHERRIE LNU, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
R. HOFFMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
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.
FILED:September 23, 2019
THEREON it is RECOMMENDED
that the motion be DENIED.
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.
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. 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).
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
STANDARD OF REVIEW.
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). 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 ...