Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brett v. U.S. Customs Marlon Moller

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

October 23, 2019

FRANK BRETT, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. CUSTOMS MARLON MOLLER, et al, Defendants. FRANK BRETT, Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE GOLDBERG, et al, Defendants. FRANK BRETT, Plaintiff,
v.
McGLAGHLN, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM

          PETRESE B. TUCKER, J.

         Plaintif Frank Brett, a serial prose litigant, has lodged tree Complaints with the Court in a period of three weeks. He fled Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in all three cases. As is typical of Brett's flings, his Complaints are difficult to read, rambling, ad nae numerous Defendants based on allegations ad events going back several decades. The Complaints replicate each other and replicate allegations raised in prior lawsuits. Brett also moved to file his cases under seal, as is his usual practice.

         For the following reasons, the Court will grant Brett leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his Complaints. The Court will deny Brett's motions to file his cases under seal and his other outstanding motion. In light of Brett's litigation history, which reflects that he has abused the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis by repeatedly filing meritless complaints over a period of several years, the Court will direct Brett to show cause as to why he should not be subjected to a prefiling injunction.

         I. FACTS AND BRETT'S LITIGATION HISTORY[1]

         A. Brett's Litigation History in This Court

         Since 2008, Brett has filed fifty-four lawsuits in this Court, not counting the three Complaints currently pending. In each of his prior lawsuits, Brett sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. None of Brett's previously-filed cases proceeded past screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and almost all of them were dismissed because they were based on incomprehensible or frivolous allegations, or for lack of jurisdiction.[2] Brett's Complaints are often illegible and regularly appear grounded in paranoid delusions. They usually name numerous defendants and discuss conduct going back decades including alleged slights, crimes, and conspiracies committed by members of state and federal government, court employees, assorted corporate entities, family members, neighbors, priests, random individuals who happened to jog by Brett on the street, and strippers. In fact, Brett has included with some of his complaints copies of fliers advertising strip-clubs, which feature pictures of scantily clad or half-naked women.

         Brett's complaints often repeat allegations contained in prior frivolous pleadings. He also regularly moves to file his cases under seal out of apparent concern that his life in in danger.

         B. Brett's Litigation History in Other Federal Courts

         Brett has demonstrated a similar pattern of litigious activity in other federal district courts throughout the country. A search of Brett's name in the Public Access to Court Electronic Records ("PACER") system and in Westlaw reflects that Brett has filed well over one-hundred lawsuits in at least seventeen federal district courts since 2006.[3] His cases are characteristically "largely illegible handwritten pleading[s] containing rambling, unclear, and nonsensical assertions." Brett v. Wingate, Civ. A. No. 15-02438, 2016 WL 1458941, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 1450703 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 13, 2016); see also Brett v. Bush, Civ. A. No. 09-0213, 2009 WL 290251, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2009) ("There appear to be so many factual allegations against so many defendants that the Court cannot discern what claim or claims he brings against each defendant."); Brett v. Woodley, Civ. A. No. 06-410, 2007 WL 1695652, at *4 (D. Del. June 8, 2007) ("Brett never identifies which facts support which claims-or even which defendants are associated with which claims-and the facts themselves are presented in such an incoherent manner that it is impossible for the court to determine the bases for the legal claims.").

         Several courts have documented Brett's vexatious behavior. See, e.g., Brett v. Zimmerman, Civ. A. No. 15-02414, 2018 WL 6576412, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 2018) ("Frank Brett, is a prolific serial litigant who has initiated more than a dozen prior in forma pauperis actions in this Court, all of which have ended with dismissal as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 6567721 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2018); Brett v. Hansen, Civ. A. No. 12-127, 2013 WL 663914, at *3 (E.D. N.C. Feb. 25, 2013) ("Court records show that plaintiff has pursued, unsuccessfully, scores of cases in twelve different federal districts."), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 1187433 (E.D. N.C. Mar. 22, 2013); Brett v. State Police, Civ. A. No. 08-433, 2008 WL 2073899, at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2008) ("[Brett's] Complaint is yet another attempt to sue a slew of individuals, but fails to state a cause of action." (footnote omitted)). He is also subject to a prefiling injunction in at least one district. See Brett v. Unknown Black Woman Jogger, Civ. A. No. 12-1516, 2013 WL 1774387, at *2 (D. Del. Apr. 24, 2013) (directing Brett to show cause "why he should not be enjoined from filing any complaint, lawsuit, or petition for writ of mandamus, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware regarding or relating to alleged violations of his civil rights by reason of religion and/or sex and slander including, but not limited to, actions against unknown individuals").[4]

         C. Brett's Pending Complaints

         1. Brett v. Moller, Civ. A. No. 19-4546

         On September 30, 2019, Brett lodged a Complaint with the Court, which was docketed as Civil Action Number 19-4546, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a Motion to file his case under seal because he fears for his life. He identified ten Defendants in the caption of the Complaint, including two individuals who appear to work for the United States Customs Service and someone by the name of Steve Cannamiche, identified as a "court clerk," who has been sued by Brett on numerous prior occasions although the spelling of his name varies. Brett also attached to his Complaint a list entitled "Addresses of Defendants," which lists 125 individuals and/or entities Brett apparently seeks to sue. (Civ. A. No. 19-4546 Compl. ECF No. 2 at 6-9.)[5] Many of these individuals have previously been named as Defendants in Brett's prior cases, e.g., the Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg, who serves on this Court, Joe Biden and his wife Jill, Congressman Robert Brady, and former Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams.

         Brett's Complaint is rambling and unintelligible. He refers to numerous individuals whom he appears to believe have wronged him or, perhaps, who have wronged society in some respect. Brett indicates that he is seeking relief for events that occurred from 1986 through 2019. (Id. at 3.) His allegations are entirely disjointed and often do not clearly relate to the named Defendants or events that happened in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.