Opinion
CV-24-02428-PHX-GMS
09-26-2024
Gene Scott, II, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Party, Defendant. Cases Dismissed after Leave to Amend Given and Plaintiff Failed to Amend
ORDER
G. MURRAY SNOW CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) and a Motion Requesting Summary Judgment (Doc. 5). The same document contains a Motion to Reconsider in an unrelated and unidentified action. The Court will grant the Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) and screen Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to that screening, Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed as frivolous without leave to amend. The Court thus denies as moot Mr. Scott's Motion Requesting Summary Judgment (Doc. 5). Further Plaintiff Gene Scott II, signing the Complaint as Gene Edward Scott II, has abused the legal process egregiously and often, and does so again by the filing of this Complaint. This Order not only dismisses this action with prejudice but, orders Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not impose an abusive-litigant injunction to curb Plaintiff's accelerating practice of filing wholly meritless suits within the Federal Courts.
BACKGROUND
In the present complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim against an unknown Defendant or Defendants. His claim seeks “For wherever to Legalize Plaintiff's Liquor Consumptions and Sales,” apparently a § 1983 claim which he identifies under Amendments I, VIII and XIV of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (which defines the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade). He apparently seeks some form of general declaratory authorization to both sell and consume liquor regardless of the setting. His only other allegation in the Complaint states that he “has . . . legal Certifications for both Dual Diagnosis and Meta Service as Counselor,” and further states that “Plaintiff during now and ongoing and . . . is age: 57 years.”
Since 2003 Plaintiff has filed at least 108 cases with this Court. His rate of filing has increased exponentially in the last three years, during which Plaintiff has filed approximately 80 cases. All of Plaintiff's claims have been dismissed on the various bases as set forth in appendix A to this order.
This Court has for over a year repeatedly warned Plaintiff about the likely consequences of continuing his pattern of filing meritless lawsuits. Scott v. Veteran's Admin., 2:23-cv-1151-DWL (July 19, 2023) (Doc. 12) at 3-4. Scott v. Unknown Party, 2:24-cv-1343-DWL (Doc. 6) (June 21, 2024); Scott v. Unknown Party, 2: 24-cv-2000-MTL (Doc. 5) (August 13, 2024); Scott v. Unknown Party, 2:24-cv-01221-SMM (Doc. 6) August 21, 2024; Scott v. U.S. Dep't of Veteran's Affairs, 24-cv-2074-SMM (Doc. 6) (Aug. 29, 2024). His filing of frivolous lawsuits has nevertheless accelerated. Further, although a resident of this state, Plaintiff has filed a sufficient number of meritless complaints (at least six) in the Eastern District of Arkansas that he has lost his ability to file in forma pauperis complaints there. Scott v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 2024 WL 1069723 at *1, 4:24-cv-00049-BRW (E.D. Ark. January 24, 2024) (holding that “the Clerk of the Court is directed to no longer accept complaints from Plaintiff unless he pays the filing fee. Previous warnings have been ignored and this is the only way to prevent Plaintiff from wasting the Court's resources.”)
DISCUSSION
I. Dismissal of the Instant Complaint
While much of § 1915 outlines how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that “although the PLRA was intended to cut down on the volume of prisoner lawsuits . . . section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”) [S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that either fails to state a claim or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). To state a claim, a complaint must contain “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action[;]” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before the dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially recognized facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Plaintiff's Complaint is completely unintelligible and falls far short of plausibility. It does not even include a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Because the Plaintiff's claim lacks any arguable basis either in law or in fact, it is also frivolous. As such it is dismissed. Because the complaint is unintelligible and frivolous, it cannot be saved under any of the grounds asserted by Claimant, and dismissal with prejudice would have no preclusive effect on any future meritorious suit as no Defendant is named. The dismissal is, thus, without leave to amend.
II. The Order to Show Cause
28 U.S.C. § 1915 allows district courts to waive filing fees for those unable to pay them to “promote the interests of justice.” In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 179 (1991). As this Court observed inMaisano v. CO III Clark, 4:14-cv-00001-RCC (Doc. 2) at 2 (January 29, 2014) “the vast majority of those seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in this District are permitted to do so.” But as theMaisano court also noted, “a few who do so ‘seize on the court's openness and pervert it for purposes that have little to do with obtaining justice.'” Id. quoting Jones v. Warden of the Statesville Corr. Ctr., 918 F.Supp. 1142, 1152 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
III. Need for an Abusive-Litigant Injunction
Plaintiff first filed a case with this Court in 1996, but then did not file any further cases until 2003. Although in some years thereafter he filed no cases at all, when he filed cases, he typically filed between one and three cases a year with an uptick in 2010 in which he filed nine cases and 2015 in which he filed six. In the last three years, however, Plaintiff has filed 78 cases with this Court: sixteen in 2022, 31 cases in 2023 and 31 so far this year. His pace of filings has increased more than ten-fold. All of Plaintiffs cases, regardless of when they have been filed, have been dismissed: 34 of the cases were voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff before any action was taken, 28 of them were dismissed as frivolous by the Court, 15 were dismissed by the Court after the Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and Plaintiff failed to amend, on six more Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim rather than file an amendment, and 10 more were dismissed for lack of prosecution. Four more remain pending.
Since 2003 Plaintiff has filed at least 108, but, as is demonstrated, his rate of filing has increased exponentially in the last three years. Plaintiff has never asserted a meritorious claim.
These cases, whether or not a determination of frivolousness was made, are wholly without merit. They generally seek relief that is beyond any power of this Court to cure. For example, Plaintiff currently has another case pending in this division of the Court in which he seeks the exoneration of Jesus Christ under the United States Constitution from judgments imposed under Roman and Egyptian rule. It names as Defendants, Rome, Italy, Europe, Pontius Pilate, and Unknown Persons. Scott v. Rome, Italy and Europe, 2:24-cv-2012-GMS (Doc. 1) (August 9, 2024). After filing an Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Id. at Doc. 2), he has asked that a summary judgment be entered, dismissing the case, but awarding him his costs in bringing it. (Id. at Doc. 5). The same document contains a motion to reconsider in an unrelated but unidentified action.
In other recent actions brought in this Division, Plaintiff has sued “Section 8” apparently some form of governmental housing subsidy from which he benefits. He apparently wants a declaratory judgment under the Constitution and the “Administrative Act,” to the effect that he can keep Section 8 benefits, while still gaining income. Scott v. Section 8, 2:23-cv-01687-GMS (Doc. 1) (August 18, 2023). Plaintiff has also sued the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division under the United States Constitution requesting the cost-free reinstatement of his driver's license, Scott v. AzMVD, 2:23-cv-02326-GMS (Doc. 1) (November 6, 2023); he has also sued Monroe County, Arkansas asking the Court to order the small community to conduct weekly varsity sports in the high school gymnasium with paid spectator's admissions, and free snacks and drinks to stimulate the economy and provide good exercise to the people as a matter of constitutional right. Scott v. Monroe County, Arkansas, 2:24-cv-00766-GMS (Doc. 1) (April 5, 2024). As he did in this action, Plaintiff most often files cases against identified or “Unknown Defendants” seeking relief that is both extreme and unavailable.
Last year, the Court reviewed Plaintiff's meritless pattern of filing frivolous cases accompanied by IFP applications, each containing a different account of Plaintiff's finances, even when filed in the same month and then voluntarily dismissing these cases. It then warned plaintiff that “[t]he practice of repeatedly filing actions in federal court without an intention to proceed with them needlessly burdens the judiciary. Plaintiff is cautioned that continuing this pattern could result in an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.” Scott v. Veteran's Admin., 2:23-cv-1151-DWL (July 19, 2023) (Doc. 12) at 3-4. Thereafter the Court has repeatedly advised Plaintiff of the frivolous nature of his suits, Scott v. Unknown Party, 2:24-cv-1343 (Doc. 6) (June 21, 2024); Scott v. Unknown Party, 2: 24-cv-2000-MTL (Doc. 5) (August 13, 2024); Scott v. Unknown Party, 2:24-cv-01221-SMM (Doc. 6) August 21, 2024; Scott v. U.S. Dep't of Veteran's Affairs, 24-cv-2074-SMM (Doc. 6) (Aug. 28, 2024). The Court's warnings have done nothing to stem these filings.
“Every paper filed with a court requires the expenditure of limited judicial resources. In Re McDonald, 489 U.S. at 184. When a court is forced to devote its limited judicial resources to processing repetitious and frivolous cases, the “goal of dispensing justice is compromised.” Maisano, 4:14-cv-00001-RCC (Doc. 2) at 2 citing In re Sindram, 498 U.S. at 179-80. The court's ability to ensure the administration of justice for all litigants is endangered by the abusive conduct of a few. Even if Plaintiff is under misperceptions and does not fully mean to engage in abusive litigation, in the filings of his multiple meritless complaints, he is doing so.
Courts may use their inherent powers to “restrict a litigant's ability to commence abusive litigation in forma pauperis. Visser v. Supreme Court of the State of California, 919 F.2d 113, 114 (9th Cir. 1990). They must regulate the activity of abusive litigations “by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.” DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989).
IV. Proposed Injunctive Order
Prior to restricting an abusive litigant's access to the Court, the Court must provide that litigant with notice of the impending injunction and an opportunity to oppose it. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). The order must be “narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered,” to prevent infringement on the right of access. Id.
Federal statute prohibits prisoner plaintiffs from bringing a civil action in forma pauperis if the plaintiff has, “on 3 or more prior occasions, . . . brought an action or appeal . . . that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Some courts have explicitly held that while the statute refers only to prisoners, it equally applies to non-prisoners. Groulx v. Zawadski, 635 F.Supp.3d 574 (E.D. Mich. 2022), Cf. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that “although the PLRA was intended to cut down on the volume of prisoner lawsuits . . . section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”) Even assuming, however, that section (g) of the Act only applies to prisoners as a matter of statute, there is no apparent reason why, through the Court's inherent power, the same result should not apply to non-prisoners who have filed three IFP lawsuits dismissed as frivolous. Visser, 919 F.2d at 114. This District has dismissed 26 of Plaintiff's cases as frivolous; many more dismissed on other grounds were also frivolous. The Eastern District of Arkansas has dismissed at least six of Plaintiff's cases as frivolous. Thus, as a matter of either statute or the Court's inherent power to prevent vexatious litigation, the Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any in forma pauperis lawsuit that does not assert that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Further, in light of the multiple meritless filings by the Plaintiff, the Court will limit the number of times that Plaintiff may seek to file in forma pauperis lawsuits to three times per year. Jones v. Warden of Statesville Correctional Center, 918 F.Supp. 1142, 1155 (E.D. Ill. 1995) (enjoining Plaintiff from filing more than three in forma pauperis suits per year.) see also Cello-Whitney v. Hoover, 769 F.Supp. 1155, 1157 (W.D. Wa. 1991) (same). Further, as to those three lawsuits allowed, Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any civil action in this or any other federal court without first obtaining leave of the court.
V. Notice and Opportunity to Show Cause
This Order serves as notice of the Court's intent to impose an abusive-litigant injunction on Plaintiff. The Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to show cause in writing why such an injunction should not be imposed. Plaintiff's response to this Order shall be limited to this issue and shall be filed within 14 days of the date this Order is filed.
If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order or fails to persuade the Court that an injunction should not be imposed, the Court will enter an injunction with the following terms:
1. Plaintiff is enjoined from filing or lodging under his name or any other name or alias more than three in forma pauperis lawsuits in any one calendar year.
2. Because Plaintiff has many more than “three strikes,” any in forma pauperis lawsuit he files must clearly, coherently, and credibly allege that Plaintiff is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. False allegations of imminent danger may subject Plaintiff to sanctions.
3. The Clerk of Court shall not accept, shall not return, and shall discard every in forma pauperis lawsuit submitted in excess of the limit of three per year or in which imminent danger of serious physical injury is not alleged.
4. As to any one of the three in forma pauperis lawsuits which Plaintiff seeks to file in any calendar year, Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any civil action in this or any other federal court without first obtaining leave of the court. In seeking leave to file, Plaintiff must file a motion for leave to file captioned as an “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File.” In the Application:
A. Plaintiff must file an affidavit certifying that the claim or claims presented are new and have never been raised by Plaintiff in a federal court.
B. Plaintiff must certify that, to the best of his knowledge, the claim or claims presented are neither frivolous nor taken in bad faith.
C. Plaintiff must affix a copy of this Order and list of all cases previously filed involving similar or related causes of action.
D. The failure to comply strictly with the terms of this Order shall be sufficient grounds to deny leave to file.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Granting Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2).
2. Denying as moot, Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Summary Judgment (Doc. 5).
3. Dismissing this case with prejudice.
4. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of this Order, why the injunction proposed in this Order should not be imposed. Plaintiff's response to this Order shall be limited to this issue.
5. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order or fails to persuade the Court that an injunction should not be imposed, the Court will issue an injunction with the terms set forth in this Order.
APPENDIX “A”
Cases Voluntarily Dismissed by Plaintiff before Court Action Taken
2:18-cv-02259-MHB
Scott v. Department of Public Service
filed 07/16/18
closed 08/09/18
2:20-cv-00087-ESW
Scott v. Army Review Boards Agency
filed 01/13/20
closed 08/25/20
2:21-cv-00579-JJT--MTM
Scott v. Albertson's Incorporated et al
filed 04/05/21
closed 05/07/21
2:22-cv-00376-JJT--MTM
Scott v. Maricopa County Superior Court
filed 03/11/22
closed 03/30/22
2:22-cv-00606-MHB
Scott v. United States Government
filed 04/12/22
closed 05/13/22
2:23-cv-00594-JFM
Scott v. United States Department of Treasury
filed 04/07/23
closed 04/20/23
2:23-cv-00641-DWL
Scott v. Valley Metro Transit et al
filed 04/17/23
closed 05/01/23
2:23-cv-00678-JFM
Scott v. United States Government et al
filed 04/20/23
closed 05/17/23
2:23-cv-00697-SMM
Scott v. U.S. Department of Agriculture et al
filed 04/24/23
closed 06/20/23
2:23-cv-00700-DLR
Scott v. AZ Corporate Commission
filed 04/24/23
closed 05/04/23
2:23-cv-00701-CDB
Scott v. Unknown Parties
filed 04/24/23
closed 05/05/23
2:23-cv-00849-MTL
Scott et al v. Kabul International Airport et al
filed 05/15/23
closed 05/23/23
2:23-cv-00912-SMB
Scott v. Unknow Party et al
filed 05/23/23
closed 06/01/23
2:23-cv-00964-DWL
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 05/30/23
closed 06/30/23
2:23-cv-01025-DJH
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 06/06/23
closed 06/21/23
2:23-cv-01094-DWL
Scott v. Superior Court of Maricopa County et al
filed 06/14/23
closed 06/30/23
2:23-cv-01268-DJH
Scott v. Unknown Party et al
filed 07/10/23
closed 07/31/23
2:23-cv-01622-MTL
Scott v. Unknown Parties et al
filed 08/10/23
closed 09/07/23
2:23-cv-01666-MTL
Scott v. Air National Guard et al
filed 08/16/23
closed 09/01/23
2:23-cv-02026-DGC
Scott v. Harris
filed 09/26/23
closed 10/10/23
2:23-cv-02326-GMS
Scott v. Arizona Motor Vehicle Division
filed 11/06/23
closed 12/13/23
2:23-cv-02338-DWL
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 11/08/23
closed 11/20/23
2:24-cv-00236-DLR
Scott v. United States Department of Agriculture
filed 02/02/24
closed 03/20/24
2:24-cv-00298-DGC
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 02/12/24
closed 02/28/24
2:24-cv-00352-SPL
Scott v. United States Government
filed 02/20/24
closed 03/13/24
2:24-cv-00747-DJH
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 04/03/24
closed 04/12/24
2:24-cv-00913-MTL
Scott v. Harris et al
filed 04/22/24
closed 05/07/24
2:24-cv-00935-SMM
Scott v. United States Veterans Administration
filed 04/23/24
closed 05/03/24
2:24-cv-01043-DJH
Scott v. United States Veterans Administration
filed 05/07/24
closed 06/11/24
2:24-cv-01142-DLR
Scott v. Harris et al
filed 05/16/24
closed 05/28/24
2:24-cv-01144-SPL
Scott v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
filed 05/16/24
closed 06/12/24
2:24-cv-01149-SPL
Scott v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
filed 05/17/24
closed 06/12/24
2:24-cv-01496-DWL
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 06/20/24
closed 07/10/24
2:24-cv-02011-SPL
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 08/09/24
closed 09/04/24
2:10-cv-02022-MEA
Scott v. NBA Suns et al
filed 09/22/10
closed 10/12/10
2:10-cv-02425-FJM
Scott et al v. State Bar of Arizona et al
filed 11/09/10
closed 11/15/10
2:18-cv-01409-DLR
Scott v. Thomas Nelson's Bibles
filed 05/07/18
closed 05/15/18
2:18-cv-02093-JAS
Scott v. United States Army Board of Corrections of Military Records
filed 07/02/18
closed 10/15/18
2:19-cv-04800-ESW
Scott v. Hertz
filed 07/22/19
closed 10/23/19
2:20-cv-00966-JJT
Scott v. United States Government
filed 05/18/20
closed 05/26/20
2:20-cv-00967-MTM
Scott v. Thomas Nelson's Bible Industry
filed 05/18/20
closed 05/22/20
2:21-cv-02050-JJT--MTM
Scott v. Maricopa County Superior Court
filed 12/03/21
closed 12/20/21
2:22-cv-00614-SMM-MTM
Scott v. Unknown Parties et al
filed 04/13/22
closed 08/30/22
2:22-cv-00697-MTL
Scott v. United States Government
filed 04/25/22
closed 04/28/22
2:22-cv-00775-JJT--MTM
Scott v. Maricopa County Superior Court et al
filed 05/06/22
closed 06/02/22
2:22-cv-00856-JJT
Scott v. Waste Management et al
filed 05/18/22
closed 06/03/22
2:22-cv-00972-JJT--MTM
Scott v. Maricopa County Superior Court et al
filed 06/03/22
closed 06/23/22
2:23-cv-01624-DWL
Scott v. Universal Music Group et al
filed 08/10/23
closed 08/16/23
2:23-cv-01851-JJT
Scott v. Monroe, County of et al
filed 09/01/23
closed 09/11/23
2:23-cv-02177-JAT
Scott v. Harris
filed 10/19/23
closed 10/30/23
2:23-cv-02224-MTL
Scott v. Arizona Bar Association et al
filed 10/25/23
closed 10/27/23
2:23-cv-02511-DJH
Scott v. TBN et al
filed 12/05/23
closed 12/19/23
2:24-cv-00175-JJT
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 01/25/24
closed 02/14/24
2:24-cv-00766-GMS
Scott v. Monroe, County of
filed 04/05/24
closed 04/11/24
2:24-cv-00862-DWL
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 04/16/24
closed 04/22/24
2:24-cv-01045-SPL
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 05/07/24
closed 05/10/24
2:24-cv-01220-SPL
Scott v. Unknown Parties
filed 05/22/24
closed 06/14/24
2:24-cv-01221-SMM
Scott v. Unknown Party et al
filed 05/22/24
closed 08/22/24
2:24-cv-01343-DWL
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 06/05/24
closed 06/21/24
2:24-cv-02000-MTL
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 08/07/24
closed 08/13/24
2:24-cv-02001-JAT
Scott v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
filed 08/07/24
closed 08/14/24
2:24-cv-02074-SMM
Scott v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
filed 08/14/24
closed 08/29/24
Cases Dismissed after Leave to Amend Given and Plaintiff Failed to Amend
2:10-cv-02168-JAT
Scott v. Caraballo et al
filed 10/08/10
closed 12/03/10
2:10-cv-02195-ROS
Scott v. Southwest Network et al
filed 10/15/10
closed 01/27/11
2:10-cv-02242-SRB
Scott et al v. Caraballo et al
filed 10/20/10
closed 12/08/10
2:10-cv-02425-FJM
Scott et al v. State Bar of Arizona et al
filed 11/09/10
closed 11/15/10
2:15-cv-00329-JJT
Scott v. Albertsons Incorporated
filed 02/23/15
closed 03/17/15
2:15-cv-01252-JJT
Scott v. Army Review Boards Agency
filed 07/06/15
closed 08/31/15
2:15-cv-01424-JJT
Scott v. Phoenix, City of et al
filed 07/24/15
closed 09/10/15
2:15-cv-01447-NVW
Scott v. United States Probation Department et al
filed 07/27/15
closed 09/10/15
2:15-cv-01516-JJT
Scott v. Arizona Division of Child Support Services et al
filed 08/06/15
closed 09/18/15
2:15-cv-02114-SPL
Scott v. United States Department of Defense
filed 10/21/15
closed 11/30/15
2:22-cv-00596-MTL
Scott v. United States Veterans Administration et al
filed 04/11/22
closed 05/20/22
2:22-cv-00607-DLR
Scott, II v. Maricopa, County of et al
filed 04/12/22
closed 05/04/22
2:22-cv-01103-SPL
Scott v. Maricopa County
filed 06/28/22
closed 08/17/22
2:22-cv-01079-DLR
Scott v. United States of America
filed 06/23/22
closed 08/05/22
2:22-cv-01103-SPL
Scott v. Maricopa County
filed 06/28/22
closed 08/17/22
Cases Dismissed after Leave to Amend Given and Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed
2:22-cv-00597-DWL
Scott v. Phoenix Municipal Court et al
filed 04/11/22
closed 05/12/22
2:22-cv-00873-DJH
Scott v. Washington et al
filed 05/20/22
closed 06/21/22
2:24-cv-00471-SPL
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 03/06/24
closed 03/15/24
2:23-cv-00182-JJT--MTM
Scott v. Maricopa County Police Department
filed 01/25/23
closed 04/04/23
2:23-cv-00723-SMB
Scott v. United States Government
filed 04/27/23
closed 05/17/23
2:22-cv-01022-DJH
Scott v. Federal Aviation Admin
filed 06/13/22
closed 06/28/22
Cases Dismissed for Lack of Prosecution
2:03-cv-01028-LOA
Scott v. DOD
filed 05/30/03
closed 08/27/03
2:07-cv-00696-JWS
Scott v. Army Review Boards Agency
filed 04/04/07
closed 10/09/07
2:10-cv-01975-ECV
Scott v. Unknown Parties
filed 09/14/10
closed 11/01/10
2:10-cv-01976-MHB
Scott v. Safeway Insurance Company et al
filed 09/14/10
closed 11/01/10
2:21-cv-00871-SMM
Scott v. Unknown Parties
filed 05/17/21
closed 09/21/21
2:22-cv-01185-SMM-JFM
Scott v. Unknown Parties et al
filed 07/13/22
closed 08/31/22
2:23-cv-00019-SPL
Scott v. United States Department of Defense
filed 01/03/23
closed 02/09/23
2:23-cv-00020-JAT
Scott v. Harris et al
filed 01/03/23
closed 02/21/23
2:23-cv-00021-DJH
Scott v. Unknown Party
filed 01/03/23
closed 02/28/23
2:23-cv-00184-SMB
Scott v. Unknown Party et al
filed 01/25/23
closed 03/17/23
Pending
2:24-cv-01872-SMB
Scott v. Unknown Party filed
07/29/24
2:24-cv-01873-SMM
Scott v. Unknown Party et al
filed 07/29/24
2:24-cv-02012-GMS
Scott v. Rome, City of et al
filed 08/09/24
2:24-cv-02073-SMB
Scott v. State Farm et al
filed 08/14/24