United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
R. THORSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Howard Jackson, Jr., did not pay the filing fee for this
matter, but instead applied for in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status. (See Doc. No. 2.) That
IFP application is now before the Court and must be
considered before any other action may be taken in this
review, this Court concludes that Jackson qualifies
financially for IFP status. That said, an IFP application
will be denied, and an action will be dismissed, when an IFP
applicant has filed a complaint that fails to state a cause
of action on which relief may be granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Atkinson v. Bohn,
91 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Carter
v. Schafer, 273 Fed. App'x 581, 582 (8th Cir. 2008)
(per curiam) (“[C]ontrary to plaintiffs' arguments
on appeal, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply
to all persons proceeding IFP and are not limited to prisoner
suits, and the provisions allow dismissal without
service.”). In reviewing whether a complaint states a
claim on which relief may be granted, this Court must accept
as true all of the factual allegations in the complaint and
draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.
Aten v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 511 F.3d 818, 820 (8th
Cir. 2008). Although the factual allegations in the complaint
need not be detailed, they must be sufficient to “raise
a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). The complaint must “state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. In
assessing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court may
disregard legal conclusions that are couched as factual
allegations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009). Pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, but
they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims
advanced. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th
Complaint and accompanying documents filed by Jackson are far
from clear but tend to indicate that this lawsuit is related
to a recent eviction and subsequent legal proceedings
conducted in state court. Jackson claims that during the
course of those events, his rights under the “A.D.A.
Act” and “Human Rights Act” have been
violated. (See Doc. No. 1, Compl. at 4.) But Jackson
does not affirmatively allege how, exactly, he has been
discriminated against or impeded as a result of a disability.
Nor has Jackson alleged how his federal rights have otherwise
been violated. Indeed, the Complaint and accompanying
documents are entirely conclusory; Jackson alleges repeatedly
that his eviction was unlawful and the result of widespread
municipal or state corruption without providing factual
allegations that, if proved true, would establish these
allegations. Moreover, the Defendants actually named to this
lawsuit seem to have little or no relationship to the
eviction at issue in this lawsuit. Simply put, Jackson has
not presented a plausible basis for this Court to conclude
that the named Defendants have violated the law.
there is reason to believe that this action is not brought
entirely in good faith. Jackson has brought several lawsuits
against governmental officials over the past several months.
See Jackson v. State of Minnesota, No. 19-CV-1864
(MJD/DTS) (D. Minn. 2019); Jackson v. Dept. of Human
Services, No. 19-CV-1429 (NEB/ECW) (D. Minn. 2019);
Jackson v. Hortman, No. 19-CV-1304 (SRN/SER) (D.
Minn. 2019); Jackson v. State of Minnesota, No.
19-CV-0741 (JRT/BRT) (D. Minn. 2019); Jackson v. Radias
Health, No. 19-CV-0724 (PJS/DTS) (D. Minn. 2019);
Jackson v. Dayton, No. 18-CV-1525 (DWF/HB) (D. Minn.
2018); Jackson v. Marek, No. 18-CV-1432 (JRT/KMM)
(D. Minn. 2018); Jackson v. Axtell, No. 18-CV-1073
(ECT/SER) (D. Minn. 2018). Near the end of his Complaint,
Jackson states: “If don't stop it I will keep
putting more lawsuits out I will try to make agreement pay me
what is due then I will drop some lawsuits on defendants and
move out of state no conflict of interest.” (Compl. at
5.) Although litigants have a constitutional right of access
to the courts, “there is ‘no constitutional right
of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is
frivolous or malicious.'” In re Tyler, 839
F.2d 1290, 1292 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Phillips v.
Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 208 (10th Cir. 1981)). Jackson is
therefore advised that the repeated filing of litigation
found to be meritless, vexatious, frivolous, or malicious may
result in restrictions being placed on his ability to
initiate new litigation in this District while unrepresented
without advance permission from a judicial officer.
on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED
matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
application to proceed in forma pauperis of
Plaintiff Howard Jackson, Jr. (Doc. No. 2) be
Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve
specific written objections to a magistrate judge's
proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after
being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.
A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after
being served a copy of the objections. See Local