Manning v. Richardson

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DIVISION OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL TODD MANNING PLAINTIFF v. 3:22-CV-00284-BRW CINDY LUANN RICHARDSON, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER A district court has the authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to state a claim.1 Mr. Manning contends that Cindy LuAnn Richardson “and her group” have placed a radio tracker on him without his permission. He says that he has continually been stalked, harassed, and tormented with radiation, which has prevented him from thinking freely. Because Plaintiff’s complaint is nonsensical, frivolous, and states no cause of action against Defendants for which relief may be granted, this case is DISMISSED. The motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is MOOT. Notably, this complaint is nearly identical to the one Plaintiff filed just last month.2 It also was dismissed as frivolous. If Plaintiff continues to file frivolous complaints, I may direct the Clerk of the Court to stop accepting them. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2022.

Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1See Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041 (8th Cir. 1991). 2Manning v. Richardson, et al., No. 3:22-cv-00259-JM (E.D. Ark. Oct. 3, 2022). The case was dismissed as frivolous on October 11, 2022.