Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Crosby v. Roberts

December 15, 2005

MICHAEL RICHARD CROSBY PLAINTIFFS
v.
JUDGE ROBERTS OF CONWAY COUNTY COURT AND OTHERS DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garnett Thomas Eisele United States District Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING THAT NO FURTHER PLEADINGS SHALL BE FILED BY PLAINTIFF WITHOUT PRIOR COURT APPROVAL

This is the fourth action that Plaintiff Michael Crosby, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has caused to be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The other three cases are identified above as related for the reasons and purposes stated herein.

In all cases in which a Plaintiff attempts to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is obligated to screen the case and is required by law to dismiss it if it appears frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court finds that Plaintiff satisfies the poverty requirements to proceed in forma pauperis, but concludes that his Complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim for relief for the reasons set forth below. Accordingly, his Complaint will be dismissed. The Court also finds that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion to Compel are frivolous and will be denied. The Court further concludes, based on a review of the related cases filed by Mr. Crosby and his history as a litigant, that it is necessary to impose some further restrictions on Mr. Crosby's access to the Courts in order to reduce the number of frivolous filings and to avoid the continued waste of judicial resources.

HISTORY OF RELATED CASES

The Court begins by reviewing the prior three cases filed by the Plaintiff because that review makes clear the need to impose more restrictive filing requirements on Michael Crosby. All of the cases appear to have some connection, either directly or indirectly, to damages allegedly suffered by Mr. Crosby as a result of an explosion at the Detco Industries, Inc. (Detco) manufacturing facility in Conway, Arkansas on January 5, 2004.*fn1

Each of Mr. Crosby's prior three cases are reviewed separately.

(1) Mind Guard v.Scottsdale Insurance Company, Detco Industries, Inc., City of Conway, Social Security Administration, No. 4:05-CV-00023 GTE (Case # 1)

On January 6, 2005, Michael Crosby caused an action to be filed in the name of his corporation, Mind Guard.*fn2 The case was assigned to the undersigned judge. Mind Guard requested permission to proceed informa pauperis. The Court, noting that corporations are not considered "persons" for purposes of eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis, denied the motion, but permitted an extension of time for Mind Guard to tender the $250 filing fee. The Court also noted the requirement that Mind Guard be represented by legal counsel, and established a deadline for Mind Guard to have licensed counsel enter an appearance on its behalf.*fn3

On February 4, 2005, Mr. Michael Crosby brought papers (15 pages total) to the Clerk of the Court and requested that the papers not be filed, but instead that they be given directly to the undersigned Judge and placed "under seal." A member of the Court's staff visited with Mr. Crosby at length during that visit. The Court reviewed the papers tendered by Mr. Crosby, but concluded that there was nothing in the papers which justified their being filed under seal. The Court explained this to Mr. Crosby in its February 8th Order and also explained to him that even pleadings "filed under seal" must be filed in the case rather than submitted directly to the assigned judge for review. These papers were returned to Mr. Crosby.

After Mr. Crosby's personal visit to the Court, the Court scheduled the case for a hearing on March 16, 2005, for the purpose of explaining to Mr. Crosby the legal necessity of Mind Guard being represented by counsel and of paying the filing fee in order to proceed. Mr. Crosby appeared at the hearing and argued that Mind Guard should not be required to pay the filing fee or retain counsel. The Court rejected Mr. Crosby's argument and dismissed the case without prejudice in open court at the conclusion of the hearing.

Notwithstanding the dismissal of the case, Mr. Crosby attempted on or about November 28, 2005, to file additional pleadings in the closed case.*fn4 After reviewing the proposed submissions, the Court directed that they not be filed in the case.

(2) Michael R. Crosby v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, Detco Industries, Inc., City of Conway, Social Security Administration, Case No. 4:05-CV-469 (CASE # 2)

On March 16, 2005, Plaintiff initiated the above referenced case, Case # 2, which was assigned to The Honorable James M. Moody. The Defendants in Case # 2 are the same as in Case # 1. Additionally, the allegations in both Complaints are the same. Mr. Crosby alleges in both Complaints that the defendants were acting in bad faith and were "failing to act in acordance [sic] with needed protocals [sic] for disaster recovery and emergence [sic] management."

Judge Moody dismissed this action for failure to state a claim. Judge Moody noted that the dismissal was without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to challenge any decision of the Social Security Administration in federal court after exhaustion of his administrative remedies. Judge Moody further noted that the dismissal was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.