United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND TO SHOW
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's
Complaint and Request for Injunction, Doc. 6, filed November
12, 2019 (“Amended Complaint”).
of Proceedings In Forma Pauperis
is proceeding in forma pauperis. See Order Granting
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Doc. 5, filed
November 6, 2019. The statute governing proceedings in forma
pauperis states "the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that . . . the action . . .
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted."
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Webb v. Caldwell,
640 Fed.Appx. 800, 802 (10th Cir. 2016) ("We have
held that a pro se complaint filed under a grant of ifp can
be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to
state a claim . . . only where it is obvious that the
plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it
would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend").
Court notified Plaintiff that the Complaint fails to state a
claim because it fails to state with particularity what each
Defendant did to Plaintiff:
While the Complaint alleges that Defendant Purdue Pharma
"played a key role" and "lack[ed]
transparency," “conclusory allegations without
supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a
claim on which relief can be based . . . [and] in analyzing
the sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint, the court
need accept as true only the plaintiff's well-pleaded
factual contentions, not his conclusory allegations.”
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991). There are no factual allegations regarding the other
at 4, Doc. 5, filed November 6, 2019. The Court explained to
A complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). The Complaint must "make clear exactly
who is alleged to have done what to whom, to provide each
individual with fair notice." Robbins v.
Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1249-50 (10th Cir. 2008)
(emphasis in original); see also Nasious v. Two Unknown
B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice
Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007)
(“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must
explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the
defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed him
or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes
the defendant violated.”) (emphasis added). and granted
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Doc. 5 at 3-4.
Court dismisses this case because Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint fails to state a claim. Despite the Court's
explanation that a complaint must state with particularity
what each Defendant did to Plaintiff, there are no factual
allegations in the Amended Complaint regarding the named
Defendants. Instead, the Amended Complaint states the events
giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred with
“Every Global Citizen receiving Medical RX's from
Purdue Pharma” from “1892-Current Date, ”
my Genome is the most advanced super human genome to date in
which [unnamed] doctors alter my medical records in an
attempt to publish me and my findings while not adhering to
their care of treatment plan and under medicating me to try
to gain access to my genome for their own selfish reasons
case in question [Plaintiff] Wilfred Alexander Page (Medical
Doctor Dr, Roger Gildersleeve) from his own misunderstandings
of how and what drugs are how they are classified and how
they work in a persons system.
Amended Complaint at 5. The Amended Complaint fails to state
a claim against the named Defendants and against Dr.
Gildersleeve and the unnamed doctors because it does not
explain what each named Defendant and doctors did to
Plaintiff; when the they did it; how each Defendant's
action harmed Plaintiff; and, what specific legal right
Plaintiff believes they violated.
Power to Impose Filing Restrictions
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has discussed the
Court's power to impose filing restrictions and the
procedure for imposing filing restrictions:
“[T]he right of access to the courts is neither
absolute nor unconditional and there is no constitutional
right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is
frivolous or malicious.” Tripati v. Beaman,878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (citation
omitted). “There is strong precedent establishing the
inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities
of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored
restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.”
Cotner v. Hopkins,795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th
Cir.1986). “Even onerous conditions may be imposed upon
a litigant as long as they are designed to assist the ...
court in curbing the particular abusive behavior involved,
” except that they “cannot be so burdensome ...
as to deny a litigant meaningful access to the courts.”
Id. (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
“Litigiousness alone will not support an injunction
restricting filing activities. However, injunctions are
proper where the litigant's abusive and lengthy history
is properly set forth.” Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353
(citations omitted). “[T]here must be some guidelines
as to what [a party] must do to obtain ...