Grant v. United States

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

[DOCKET NO. 6]

JENNIFER C. BOAL United States Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff William Lee Grant, II filed in the Trial Court of Plymouth County in July 2021, a pro se complaint against Ret. General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr. Ret. General Dunford removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, see Docket No. 1, and the United States was substituted as sole defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 2679. See Docket No. 5. The defendant has moved for judicial screening, to set aside default, and for stay of responsive pleading deadline. See Docket No. 6.

For the following reasons, this Court recommends^[1] that the District Judge assigned to this case grant the motion to the extent that the default should be set aside, and the action should be dismissed. This Court also recommends that Judge Gorton should enter an order enjoining Grant from filing further pro se complaints against Ret. General Dunford and other federal officials without leave from the Court.

II. BACKGROUND

Grant previously filed a complaint against Ret. General Dunford in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Grant II v. Dunford, et al., 21-10478-WGY (D. Mass. May 6, 2021) (dismissing complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and warning that Grant could be subject to sanctions should he continue to file similar actions). Judge Young's May 6, 2021 Order noted that Grant has filed similarly frivolous actions throughout the country. Id. at p. 2 (citations omitted). In its motion, the defendant states that the instant action is “nearly identical” to two complaints filed in Illinois state courts that were removed to federal courts in Illinois. Docket No. 7 at p. 4 (citations omitted). As noted by the defendant, several federal court judges have described Grant as a serial filer of frivolous litigation, having filed over 130 cases as of 2019 and asserting what appear to be the same kind of frivolous claims that he attempts to assert in the instant action. Id. at p. 1.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The defendant seeks preliminary screening of this action. First, the defendant contends that because the state court allowed Grant a waiver of payment of court fees, this action is subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss actions in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees if the action is malicious, frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Several federal district courts have found that the screening provision applies where plaintiffs sought to proceed in forma pauperis in state court...