Clervrain, Manetirony v. Farrow, Paul

• Court: District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
• Decided: January 28, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00819
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN AND FRANCIS COBBINA OSEI-FOSU, ORDER Plaintiffs, 21-cv-819-bbc v. PAUL FARROW, GERARD RANDALL, JESSE GARZA, KATIE MCCALLUM, ANDREW DAVIS, TOM SCHREIBEL,TYLER AUGUST, MARIPAT KRUEGER, VAN WANGGARD, BRIAN WESTRATE, ANDREW HITT, DOMINGO LEQUIZAMON, KIM TRAVIS, KIM BABLER, BILL FEEHAN, BOB SPINDELL, KATHY KIEMAN, DARRYL CARLSON, JIM MILLER, KELLY RUH, CAROL BRUNNER, JOHN FANDRICH, HANNAH TESTIN, DOUG HAAG, KEITH BEST, AL OTT, SPAM TRAVIS, BILL BERGLUND, MARK JEFFERSON, ANNA KELLY, JORDAN MOSKOWITZ, KHENZER SENAT, JORDAN WILEMAN, RICH DICKIE, SARA SEDGWICK, DARIUS ADAMCZYK, QUE DALLARA, RAJEEV GAUTAM, MARK JAMES, VIMAL KAPUR, JEFF KIMBELL, GREG LEWIS, ANNE T. MADDEN, MIKE MADSEN, TIM MAHONEY, TORSTEN PLIZ, SHANE TEDJARATI, SURESH VENKATARAYALU, JOHN WALDRON, DANIEL TOKAJI, ANUJ DESAI, SUSANNAH CAMIC TAHK, URSUAL WEIGOLD, JINI JASTI, KEVIN KELLY, BETHANY A. PLUYMERS, REBECCA SCHELLER, BONNIE SHUCHA, JASON SMITH, EMILY D. KITE, MOJI OLANIYAN, SUMUDU ATAPATTU, SARAH DAVIS, ERIC GIEFER, JILL JACKLITZ, HEINZ KLUG, KAREN KOETHE, ERIN MCBRIDE, MITCH, RICHARD MONETTE, JOHN K.M. OHNESORGE, KIM M. PETERSON, RYAN POE-GAVLINSKI, ANNE SMITH, ADAM STEVENSON AND ANDREW TURNER, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Plaintiff Manetirony Clervrain, a former federal inmate now living in Indiana, is a prolific litigator who has filed more than 200 cases in federal courts around the country, including this one. Many of Clervrain’s cases have been dismissed as frivolous. He has now

filed a new lawsuit in this court, with co-plaintiff Francis Cobbina Osei-Fosu. Plaintiffs have requested leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The purpose of section 1915’s screening provisions is to insure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding. Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012). Plaintiffs’ allegations do not support any plausible claim against any defendant. Like

other pleadings and motions that plaintiff Clervrain has filed in this court, the complaint itself is typed and legible, but the allegations and legal arguments are incomprehensible. The words in the complaint do not form coherent sentences or convey clear thoughts. Plaintiffs have named more than 75 defendants, but they do not explain who most of them are, and they include no allegations suggesting that any of the defendants violated plaintiffs’ rights

under federal law. In sum, the allegations are frivolous, and do not support any viable claim

2 for relief. I will dismiss the complaint and I will also certify that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff Manetirony Clervrain and Francis Cobbina Osei-Fosu’s complaint is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 2. The court CERTIFIES that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.

Entered this 28th day of January, 2022. BY THE COURT: /s/ ________________________ BARBARA B. CRABB District Judge