Muldrow v. State of Arkansas

• Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
• Decided: January 26, 2023
• Docket: 4:22-cv-04122
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

LARRY D. MULDROW PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:22-cv-04122

STATE OF ARKANSAS et al. DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Motion for Service. ECF Nos. 2, 10. Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is granted. Based upon this Court’s review, however, the Court recommends the Motion for Service be DENIED, and the Court also recommends Plaintiff’s case be dismissed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (1996), a federal court may dismiss an in forma pauperis action “at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” In the present action, the Court is unable to decipher most of the allegations made by Plaintiff in his Complaint. ECF No. 1. Most of Plaintiff’s claims seem to be of an anticipatory nature, and he seeks some sort of Federal Court intervention in possible future action of some of the Defendants. For example, in his Complaint, for his first “cause of action” Plaintiff alleges as follows: Petitioner has made claims that he had house guess, No physical Relations Grands, & a Thug Son that started asking if his house was paid for in Hope, Arkansas and that when he purchased a new home in Texarkana, can they live there or have his house. After knowing this would not be allowed to happen, allegations of some sort was made against the Plaintiff. A Felon in a Conspiracy with the State of Arkansas, City of Hope, Prosecutors, Cops, etc to take my Hope Home, like I owe her something because I was so generous of a Samaritan to her and family over the years, never expecting any thing from Plaintiff some time frame by this Felon. Plaintiff has not seen it but, Plaintiff ha made allegations of motives and intent by this Felon and her Son, by asking me upon their visits and sleep overs, “is your house Paid for” Can we live here not even give her a hug when her mother passed, My good friend. Mary Willis. Felon stated that she is trying to be expunged as a Felon to once again work in the school system and her and Son was asking to freely live in my Hope home or have it after I obtained a new one. Petitioner has also warned in his filings about all the Drugs in their Home and Family of Fraud, thru IRS, DHS, HUD, SSA, PPP’s, food stamp sells, her taking cruise ships outside the USA, as a FELON. Begging for money and food all the time. Co-conspirator family member Selling food stamps, gambling away SSA Money, needs a pay Rep. for grandkids. Taking free money, food, gifts and not reporting it to the SSA. Using Money, buying trips to the Bahamas, cars to be used by family members. This is a family of a Con-artist assisted against me by the State/Hope, because their Bennys have dried up with me. The Petitioner had/has persistently invoked the Federal Title 18 U.S.C. 241,242, 245 against this Felon, the City of Hope, The State, and the Loaning Bancorp South, to The DOJ, in a Continued foreseen Conspiracy to take my Liberty, Life and Property, and put me in Commitment. Also the VA and VES and Baptist Hospital. CONSPIRACY. He invokes Title 1 of Title 18 USC 245. See Exhibit 37 Paragraphs 16-20, and the Fair Housing Act. 42 USC 3631. James Byrd Jr Act Title 18 USC 249.

ECF No. 1 at 8-9. Plaintiff claims he needs an “Emergency Look at his Complaint to See all of the fundamental violation of his substantial and Procedural rights. And at most needs safe passage to be able to clean out his Hope Home and Be able to sell it without a False Arrest that would violate my 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th And 14th amendment rights. Defendants every day continues to be harass me and try to intimate me thru the mail system with their trick mail in violation of my ADA rights, and other fundamental rights of slander and defame, Even to my Churches and no telling what’s out on Social Media that they know I don’t normally use, but I see it on display.” ECF No. 2 at 3- 4. Even liberally construing this pro se pleading, the Court is unable to discern any recognizable cause of action in the Complaint. Based upon this Court’s review of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court cannot find a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. For a federal court to have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case, Plaintiff must demonstrate that either the diversity of citizenship requirements are met or federal question requirements are met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2005). Plaintiff has the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Devine v. Stone, Leyton & Gershman, P.C., 100 F.3d 78, 82 (8th Cir. 1996). In the present action, Plaintiff does not allege facts providing a basis for either diversity or federal question subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. Because Plaintiff has not offered a basis for subject matter jurisdiction and the Court finds no

basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s case be DISMISSED. Consistent with this recommendation, the Court also recommends Plaintiff’s Motion to file his Pleadings by Electronic Means (ECF No. 5) be DENIED. The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8thCir. 1990). ENTERED this 26th day of January 2023. Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE