United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
WILFRED L. ANDERSON, MD, Plaintiff,
JUDGE PETER J. CORRIGAN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Plaintiff Wilfred Anderson filed the above-captioned
action against Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Peter
J. Corrigan contesting the criminal contempt ruling made by
Judge Corrigan during the course of a civil action the
Plaintiff brought in State Court against Luann Mitchell and
the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority. See Wilfred
L. Anderson v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority,
No. CV-14-820828. The Judge held the Plaintiff in contempt
based on the Plaintiff s violation of Ohio's vexatious
litigator statute, and he imposed monetary fines and a 50-day
jail sentence on the Plaintiff. The Eighth District Court of
Appeals reversed the Judge's contempt ruling, finding the
Judge abused his discretion in imposing criminal sanctions on
the Plaintiff rather than other sanctions specified in
Ohio's vexatious litigator statute. Plaintiff asks this
Court to prohibit Judge Corrigan from conducting a hearing on
Plaintiffs alleged violation of a civil protection order, and
transfer the case to Judge Shannon Gallagher.
also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That Application is
the tenth case Plaintiff has filed in this federal court
against Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judges, the Ohio
Eighth District Court of Appeals or Mitchell since
2014.Six of them were filed in the past three
months. Each case contests the Ohio Courts' findings that
he is a vexatious litigant or its decisions in other cases.
Although the Court dismissed the first 4 cases under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e), informing him Judges are immune from
damages, and this Court cannot overturn a state court
judgment, rehear issues decided by the state court,
particularly on matters of state law, or interfere in
on-going state court proceedings, Plaintiff continued to file
cases in this Court against the same Defendants pertaining to
the same matter and seeking the same type of relief. This
case is no different. He is once again seeking relief from a
state court judgment by bringing an action against the judge
that issued the judgment.
this point, the Courts in this District have been tolerant of
Plaintiff spro se filings; however, there comes a
point when we can no longer allow Plaintiff to misuse the
judicial system at tax payer expense. The filing of frivolous
lawsuits and motions strains an already burdened federal
judiciary. As the Supreme Court recognized: "Every paper
filed with the Clerk of... Court, no matter how repetitious
or frivolous, requires some portion of the [Court's]
limited resources. A part of the Court's responsibility
is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that
promotes the interests of justice." In re
McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). Our ability to
perform our duties is compromised when we are forced to
devote limited resources to the processing of repetitious and
frivolous filings. In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177,
careful review of Plaintiffs conduct in this and other cases
filed in the Northern District of Ohio, this Court has
determined that it is necessary to impose some restrictions
on Plaintiffs ability to continue on in this manner. As an
initial matter, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee and asks
the Court to grant his Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis to waive payment. Congress first enacted an
in forma pauperis statute in 1892 "to ensure
that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal
courts." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
324, (1989) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont deNemours &
Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342-43 (1948)). Proceeding in
forma pauperis, however, is a privilege, and not a
right. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603 (6th
Cir. 1998); Weaver v. Toombs, 948 F.2d 1004, 1008
(6th Cir. 1991); Marshall v. Beshear, No.
3:10CV-663-R, 2010 WL 5092713, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 7, 2010).
Federal courts may revoke or deny the privilege of proceeding
as a pauper when a litigant abuses the privilege by
repeatedly filing frivolous, harassing, or duplicative
lawsuits. See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184-85
(l989)(per curiam); Maxberry v. S.E.C., 879 F.2d
222, 224 (6th Cir.1989) (per curiam). Plaintiff has abused the
privilege of proceeding as a pauper by filing repetitive
frivolous cases against Judge Gaul, Judge Corrigan, Judge
Gallagher, Judge Celebreeze and Mitchell. His Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied. He may not
proceed with this action unless he pays the entire filing fee
of $400.00. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he continues to
file frivolous lawsuits, the Court may enjoin him from filing
any new actions without first obtaining leave of court.
Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 260-61 (6th Cir.
1992); Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th
Plaintiff s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Doc. No. 2) is DENIED and this action is
dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be
taken in good faith. Plaintiff may file a Motion to Reopen the
case, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, if
he pays the full filing fee of $400.00 prior to or
contemporaneously with the filing of the Motion. This Court
will not accept any documents for filing in this case,
including the Motion to Reopen the Case, unless and until the
full filing fee is paid. The Clerk's Office is instructed
to return, unfiled, any document submitted without the filing
 See Anderson v. Mitchell No.
1:14 CV 276 (N.D. Ohio July 29, 2014) (Gaughan, J.);
Anderson v. Eighth App. Dist. Ct. of Appeals of
Ohio, No. 1:15 CV 1457 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 28, 2015) (Gwin,
J.); Anderson v. Corrigan, No. 1:17 CV 2352
(N.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2018) (Boyko, J.); Anderson v.
Gaul, No. 1:17 CV 2451 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2018) (Boyko,
J.); Anderson v. Mitchell, 1:19 CV 1011 (N.D. Ohio
filed May 6, 2019) (Adams, J.); Anderson v. Gaul,
No. 1:19 CV 1012 N.D. Ohio filed May 6, 2019) (Adams, J.);
Anderson v. Gallagher, No. 1:19 CV 1072 (N.D. Ohio
filed May 13, 2019) (Oliver, J.); Anderson v.
Celebreeze, No. 1:19 CV 1079 (N.D. Ohio filed May 14,
2019) (Boyko, J.); Anderson v. Mitchell, No. 1:19 CV
1178 (N.D. Ohio filed May 21, 2019).
 See also Levy v. Macy's,
Inc., No. 1:13-cv-148, 2014 WL 49188, at *4 -5 (S.D.
Ohio Jan. 7, 2014); Hopson v. Secret Service, Wo.
3:12CV-770-H, 2013 WL 1092915, at *l-3 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 15,
2013); Marshall v. Beshear, No. 3:10CV-663-R, 2010
WL 5092713, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 7, 2010); Haddad
v.Michigan Nat. Bank, No. 1:09-cv-1023, 2010 WL
2384535, at *2-3 (W.D.Mich. June 10, 2010).
 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis
if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in ...