Jordan v. USA ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION PRINCE TERRELL D. JORDAN, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:22-cv-534 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE Magistrate Judge Litkovitz USA, et al., Defendants. ORDER Prince Terrell D. Jordan (aka Tracy Halsell) sued the United States of America, “DOJ,” “AG,” President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the United States Attorney for this District on September 16, 2022. (Doc. 3). He appears to believe that some of the Defendants entered a verbal contract with him and now owe him $20 trillion.1 (Id. at #44–45). Because Jordan sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Magistrate Judge had an obligation to screen the Complaint for frivolousness under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2)(B). Based on that review, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 4) on September 28 recommending that this Court sua sponte dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. The R&R points out that Jordan provides no “factual content or context” making plausible any violation of Jordan’s rights by any of the Defendants. (Id. at #57). 1 He has more recently filed a “Request to Increase Lawsuit Amount to $70 Trillion.” (See Doc. 9). The R&R also advised the parties that failure to object within fourteen days may result in forfeiture of rights, including the right to district court review. (Id. at #58). See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report to which no objections are filed.”); Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R ... is forfeiture”); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Jordan did not object. Still, the advisory committee notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) suggest that the Court must “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Redmon v. Noel, No. 1:21-cv-445, 2021 WL 4771259, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 13, 2021) (collecting cases). The Court has completed the requisite review and finds no clear error, indeed no error at all. Jordan’s only claim seems to be that President Biden and Vice President Harris entered a $20 trillion “verbal contract” with him and have not paid him. He provides no factual development nor legal standard that could possibly lead a Court to rule in his favor. The Magistrate Judge capably reviewed Jordan’s documents and concluded that he failed to state a claim. The Court agrees; the Complaint does not “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) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (rejecting the idea that a complaint can procced with only “naked assertion[s]”). As the Magistrate Judge rightly pointed out, the only facts that Jordan alleges are “implausible and ‘wholly incredible.” (Doc. 4, #57 (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992)). Since the Magistrate Judge issued the R&R, Jordan has filed a Motion to Strike and Compel (Doc. 5), a Motion for Recusal (Doc. 6), and a “Motion to initiate a action to suggest the details in a way that will give the presiding judge jurisdiction over the matter and rule in my favor,” (Doc. 8). He has also filed a “Request to Increase Lawsuit Amount to $70 Trillion,” (Doc. 9), which the Court will treat as a motion. Each of the Motions is borderline-unintelligible and obviously frivolous. See Aull v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010). So, as to the Complaint, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 4) in full. The Court DISMISSES Jordan’s Complaint (Doc. 3) WITH PREJUDICE. The Court further DENIES as moot Jordan’s Motion to Strike and Compel (Doc. 5), his Motion for Recusal (Doc. 6), his “Motion to initiate a[n] action,” (Doc. 8), and his “Request to Increase Lawsuit Amount to $70 Trillion,” (Doc. 9). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment and TERMINATE this matter on the Court’s docket. The Court further CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore DENIES Jordan leave to appeal in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED. April 25, 2028 : DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE