Johnson v. United States, 4:20-CV-00679 SRC

• Decision Date: 16 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. 4:20-CV-00679 SRC,4:20-CV-00679 SRC
• Parties: JEFFREY L.G. JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

JEFFREY L.G. JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:20-CV-00679 SRC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

June 16, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This fee-paid case filed by self-represented plaintiffs Jeffrey L.G. Johnson, Jerry Arnaz Johnson, and Joseph Johnson ("Plaintiffs") is before the Court on the following motions: Defendant Andrew Berg's Motion to Dismiss and Quash Service of Process [6], Defendant Brinker & Doyen, LLP's Motion to Dismiss and Quash Service of Process [8], Defendant Charter Communications, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and Quash Service of Process [11], Defendant City of St. Louis's Motion to Dismiss [17], Defendant United States' Motion to Dismiss [25] and Defendants Office of the State Attorney General and Eric Schmitt's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint [29]. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Entry of Default [13], three Motions to Compel Discovery [14], [15], [16], and a motion titled "Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Notice for Removal . . ." [23]. For the following reasons, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and denies Plaintiffs' and Defendants' motions as moot.

I. Background

This is the sixth action filed with respect to the same subject matter by Plaintiffs together, separately, or with other plaintiffs. In four of the prior suits Plaintiffs were self-represented and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court dismissed these cases on one of the grounds specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Johnson, et al. v. United States, et al, No. 4:19-CV-1694 ERW (E.D. Mo. July 8, 2019) (filed by two of these Plaintiffs; finding Plaintiffs' allegations "clearly baseless" and dismissing case as "factually frivolous" pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)); Johnson, et al. v. United States, et al., No: 4:12-CV-2155 AGF (E.D. Mo. Dec. 12, 2012) (filed by Plaintiff Joseph Johnson and others; finding complaint "incoherent" and its allegations as "wholly delusional" and dismissing case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Johnson, et al. v. United States, et al., 4:12-CV-896 JAR (E.D. Mo. May 23, 2012) (filed by two of these Plaintiffs; finding the complaint "nothing more than a tirade of nonsensical accusations concerning Plaintiffs' dissatisfaction with the outcome of their previous cases"¹ and finding the "main purpose of the instant lawsuit is not to rectify any cognizable harm, but only to harass and disparage the judges and lawyers who had anything to do with Plaintiffs' previous litigation, and others who had nothing to do with the litigation;" dismissing case with prejudice under § 1915(e) as malicious); Johnson v. Obama, et al, No. 4:10-CV-2303 RWS (E.D. Mo. Dec. 14, 2010) (filed by Plaintiff Jeffrey L.G. Johnson; finding complaint described "fantastic or delusional scenarios" or contained "fanciful factual allegations;" dismissing case under § 1915(e)(2)). The fifth case the Court dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and as frivolous. See Johnson v. United States, et al., No. 4:19-CV-2328 SRC (E.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2019).

This Court described the complaint in the first case Plaintiffs filed concerning the relevant subject matter, Johnson v. Obama, et al, No. 4:10-CV-2303 RWS, as follows:

Plaintiff, a resident of St. Louis, Missouri, purports to be an "executor." He sues several categories of high-level government officials, including the current and former presidents of the United States, justices of the Supreme Court, speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives, attorneys general, directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and various others. Plaintiff summarizes his lengthy complaint as "charg[ing] the Defendants [with] knowingly and recklessly participating in a conspiracy with state actors of the State of Missouri in a scheme stemming from the initial defrauding of an estate, to executing a domestic surveillance and intercept program by the Defendant, (U.S.), under a shroud of secrecy by the federal Courts, the office of the Chief Executive of the President(s), the U.S. Congress and State actors of the State of Missouri from 1988-present."

Johnson v. Obama, No. 4:10-CV-2303, Mem. and Order of Dec. 14, 2010 (Doc. 6 at 1-2).

The instant case, and the other prior cases listed above, contain similar allegations. Here, the complaint is 100 pages long and names 142 defendants as well as "John Doe or Unknown Doe." Plaintiffs caption their complaint "In re: Estate of P.D. & Vandelia W. Johnson," describe themselves as Jeffrey L.G. Johnson, "Executor," and Joseph Johnson, "Estate's Legal Proxy" and assert in a footnote that additional plaintiffs are P.D. Johnson, Vandelia Johnson, and six other named persons "in re Estate No. 3-87-0974-P-D & 3-93-1257-PD." Doc. 5, pg. 9, n.1. Plaintiffs filed this case in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City and Defendant City of St. Louis removed it to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) because Plaintiffs assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The beginning of the Complaint refers to "Section 1983 Civil Rights Act of 1871 ch. 22 17 Stat. 13 (1871 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. S 1983 (1982), 1964 Civil Rights Act Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241" the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Missouri Constitution, "Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 2," and "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization, RICO ACT 18 U.S.C. S 1961-1968 joining state law Missouri fraud statute RSMo, S 516.120(5) andConspiracy Statute RSMo, S 564.016.6(1)." Doc. 5, pg. 10. It states that Plaintiffs and estate members "petition joinder of claims and remedy; those similar circumstanced civil rights deprivation and subjected to Title III program by defendants." Id. It further states, "Plaintiffs seek relief inter alia First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments due process deprivation, liberty privacy deprivation, property unconstitutional taking by United States, and State of Missouri, and foreign City State licensed to conduct business within the jurisdiction of the State of Missouri." Id. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, punitive, and other damages, in different amounts against different Defendants, the most being $180 billion from the United States. Id. at 96.

Defendants include the United States, former and current presidents, the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, the CIA, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices, judges of this district court, judges of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Missouri Supreme Court judges, St. Louis City, St. Louis County, the Missouri general assembly, Missouri former and current governors, and many more.

II. Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." The notice pleading standard of Rule 8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to give "a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." To meet this standard and to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted). This requirement of facial plausibility means the factual content of the plaintiff's allegations must "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. Express Scripts Holding Co., 911 F.3d 505, 512 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). The Court must grant all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe nonmoving party. Lustgraaf v. Behrens, 619 F.3d 867, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2010). Ordinarily, only the facts alleged in the complaint are considered for purposes of a motion to dismiss; however, materials attached to the complaint may also be considered in construing its sufficiency. Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).

When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court "must liberally construe a complaint in favor of the plaintiff[.]" Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 592 F.3d 853, 862 (8th Cir. 2010). However, if a claim fails to allege one of the elements necessary to recover on a legal theory, the Court must dismiss that claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Crest Constr. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346, 355 (8th Cir. 2011). Threadbare recitals of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although courts must accept all factual allegations as true, they are not bound to take as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations and citation omitted); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78.

Pleadings filed by self-represented persons are to be liberally construed and are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by an attorney. Smith v. St. Bernards Reg'l Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994). Nonetheless, such pleadings must not be conclusory and must state sufficient facts which, when taken as true, support the claims advanced. Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). The Court "will not supply additional facts, nor will [it] construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been pleaded." Id. (quoted case omitted).

III. Discussion

a. Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claims

After service of process in a fee-paid case, a court may dismiss claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on its own motion if the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim uponwhich relief can be granted. Murphy v. Lancaster, 960 F.2d 746, 748 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041, 1042-1043 (8th Cir. 1991); see Smithrud v. City of St. Paul, 746...