Ivey v. Frost
| Decision Date | 01 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 17974.,17974. |
| Citation | 346 F.2d 115 |
| Parties | Jess Solomon IVEY, Appellant, v. Robert H. FROST et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Jess Solomon Ivey, pro se.
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellee.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, BLACKMUN and MEHAFFY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Jess Solomon Ivey, from order of the District Court denying him leave to proceed with his civil claim for damages in forma pauperis. The trial court permitted plaintiff to appeal from such order in forma pauperis. Such appeal has been perfected. This case is before us upon the original record. We have examined the record with care, including numerous letters written by the plaintiff to the trial court. Our examination of the record convinces us that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff the right to proceed with his civil action in forma pauperis.
No adequate statement of the basis of federal jurisdiction is set out in the complaint. Plaintiff in the caption of the complaint states, "Civil Law Suits — Complaint Federal Rules Section 42 Code 1983." Likely the plaintiff intended to refer to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Plaintiff has made no adequate statement of jurisdictional facts. Upon this ground alone, the complaint is fatally defective. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Vorachek v. United States, 8 Cir., 337 F.2d 797, 799.
Plaintiff's asserted cause of action is based upon the claim that defendant, Senator Frost, and members of his Missouri legislative committee, stole or obtained by fraud certain papers plaintiff presented to such committee in support of a claim he made that certain members of the Supreme Court of Missouri should be impeached. Such papers, so far as can be ascertained from plaintiff's pleadings, consisted largely of portions of the testimony and proceedings in criminal and civil actions involving plaintiff litigated in Missouri courts. Plaintiff asserts that the lack of such papers prevents him from impeaching the Supreme Court Judges, thereby violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that such action amounts to a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States or to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 371, and that he has suffered damages of $5,000,000. Such contention is wholly without merit. The trial court in its order states inter alia:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n
...96, 97-98, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936); Preston, 410 F.2d at 236; Carlson v. Coca-Cola, 483 F.2d 279, 280 (9th Cir. 1973); Ivey v. Frost, 346 F.2d 115, 115-16 (8th Cir. 1965); Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, AFL-CIO v. Central Airlines, Inc., 295 F.2d 209, 216 (5th Cir. 1961), rev'd on other grounds, 372......
-
Framlau Corporation v. Dembling
...1967); Sikora v. Brenner, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 357, 379 F.2d 134, 136 (1967); Paynes v. Lee, 377 F.2d 61, 63 (5th Cir. 1967); Ivey v. Frost, 346 F.2d 115 (8th Cir. 1965); Eidschun v. Pierce, 335 F.Supp. 603, 615 (S.D.Iowa 1971); Uhler v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 321 F.Supp. 490, 491 (E.D.P......
-
Montogomery v. Mississippi
...584 (1961)); Bowman v. White, 388 F.2d 756 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 891, 89 S.Ct. 214, 21 L.Ed.2d 172 (1968); Ivey v. Frost, 346 F.2d 115 (8th Cir.1965). A. Fifteenth The Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "[t]he right of citizens of the United Sta......
-
James v. Ambrose
...Sikora v. Brenner, 126 U.S. App. D.C. 357, 379 F.2d 134, 136 (1967); Paynes v. Lee, 377 F.2d 61, 63 (5th Cir. 1967); Ivey v. Frost, 346 F.2d 115 (8th Cir. 1965); Eidschun v. Pierce, 335 F.Supp. 603, 615 (S.D. Iowa 1971); Uhler v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 321 F.Supp. 490, 491 (E.D. Pa. ......