United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ALICE THEILER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jerome Brown, appearing pro se, filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a proposed civil
complaint. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff's proposed complaint is
difficult to decipher and does not appear to include any
viable claims or basis for jurisdiction in this Court. He
names as defendants various officials or individuals located
in the District of Columbia and identifies his pleading as a
Complaint for Conversion of Property.
has a history of filing numerous, repetitive, and frivolous
lawsuits in the federal courts across the country. A number
of cases filed in this Court in the past year have been
dismissed as frivolous. See, e.g., Brown v.
Frosh, C19-1503-RSM; Brown v Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts, C19-1484-JCC; Brown v.
Smith, C19-1416-RSM; Brown v. Brennan,
C19-1331-JLR; Brown v. United States Marshall Service, et
al., C19-1246-RAJ; Brown v. USPS PMG, C19-
0295-RSM; see also pending Report &
Recommendations in Brown v. Frank, C19-1699-RSM;
Brown v. Barr, C1593-JLR; and Brown v.
Auerbach, C19-1311-RSL. At least three other district
courts have limited plaintiff's ability to file new
cases. See Brown v. Walter, et al., C18-0320-RMP
(E.D. Wash.) (Dkt. 2) (dismissing action filed without a
filing fee or IFP application in light of litigious history;
citing Brown v. Lyons Mane Partnership, No. 10-mc-7
(D. D.C. Mar. 1, 2010) (enjoining plaintiff from proceeding
IFP), aff'd No. 10-7027 (D.C. Cir. June 7,
2010); In re: Jerome J. Brown, Misc. No. 04-465 (D.
Md. Dec. 7, 2004) (deeming plaintiff a frequent litigator and
imposing pre-filing restrictions); and In re Brown,
No. 3:10-cv-00010 (E.D. Va. July 28, 2010) (limiting
plaintiff to one lawsuit at a time pending in that
order for a pleading to state a claim for relief under Rule
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it must contain
a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the
claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand
for the relief sought. The statement of the claim must be
sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what
the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957). The factual allegations of a complaint must be
“enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must also
allege facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on
its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), this Court may deny an
application to proceed IFP and should dismiss a complaint if
it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. An action is frivolous if “it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
proposed complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to place
any defendant on notice of the nature of plaintiff's
claims or to otherwise provide any basis for this Court's
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a). Considering both plaintiff's
submission in the current case and his litigation history,
there is no reasonable basis for concluding the deficiencies
in the proposed complaint could be cured by amendment.
Further, given that this action appears frivolous and fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it is
subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
reasons set forth above, the request to proceed IFP should be
DENIED and this case DISMISSED without prejudice. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). A proposed order of dismissal
accompanies this Report and Recommendation.
to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed
with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit
within fourteen (14) days of the date on
which this Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to
file objections within the specified time may affect your
right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration
on the District Judge's motions calendar for the third
Friday after they are filed. Responses to objections may be
filed within fourteen (14) days after
service of objections. If no timely objections are filed, the
matter will be ready for consideration by the District Judge
on November 15, 2019.
 There is also, as in other cases filed
in this Court, a question as to proper venue. See,
e.g., Brown v. Barr, C1593-JLR ...