BUSSIE v. RYAN

No. 16-cv-227-wmc.

ANTHONY BUSSIE, Plaintiff, v. PAUL RYAN and PENNY PRITZKER, Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Anthony Bussie, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM M. CONLEY, District Judge.

Pro se plaintiff Anthony Bussie, a detainee at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, and a frequent litigant in courts throughout the country, has brought a proposed civil action against defendants Congressman Paul Ryan and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, contending that defendants violated his rights by accusing him of being a threat and failing to respond to his demands for payment. Bussie seeks leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, but his request will be denied because his claims are frivolous.

Bussie's complaint contains few allegations, making it difficult to determine the bases for his claims against Ryan and Pritzker. However, Bussie has filed around 150 civil suits in federal district courts around the country in the past few years. See Admin. Office of U.S. Courts, PACER Case Location, www.pacer.gov (search "Bussie, Anthony). From the various cases that have been filed by Bussie, and the opinions issued by federal courts throughout the country, including by this court in Bussie v. Attorney General, No. 13-cv-477-wmc, dkt. #3 (W.D. Wis. July 30, 2013), the court has been able to glean that Bussie believes he was performing psychic work for the government, but the government refused to pay him. Bussie was living in New Jersey, and faulted his Congressman, Robert Andrews, for not helping him obtain payment from the federal government. Bussie confronted Andrews at his home and was ultimately indicted for threatening him. However, he was found mentally incompetent to stand trial and committed to the Bureau of Prisons at FMC Butner. See United States v. Bussie, No. 1:12cr-229-RMB-1 (D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2012). Bussie subsequently filed dozens of new actions, many of which named Congressman Andrews as a defendant. Bussie was later committed to the custody and care of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246, after another court found him to be suffering from a "mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another." See United States v. Bussie, No. 5:14-HC-2186-BR (E.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 2015). He remains committed at FMC Butner.

In his present complaint, Bussie alleges that the government owes him money and that he was unfairly accused of making threats. He also mentions Congressman Andrews. These allegations and claims are the same allegations and claims that have been rejected as frivolous by this court in case no. 13-cv-477-wmc, as well as by other courts around the country. See, e.g., Bussie v. Dep't of Commerce, No. 12-cv-792, dkt. #8 (E.D.N.C. March 12, 2013) (Dkt. #8). Repetitive allegations of the sort made by Bussie are considered malicious and are grounds for dismissal. See Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1983) (noting that it is "malicious" for a pro se litigant to file a lawsuit that duplicates allegations of another pending federal lawsuit by the same plaintiff) (citations omitted). Additionally, litigants are not allowed to pursue claims that have been raised and rejected previously by other federal courts. See Arlin-Golf, LLC v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, 631 F.3d 818, 823 (7th Cir. 2011) (doctrine of claim preclusion bars repetitive litigation). Because Bussie is attempting to raise duplicative claims that have been adjudicated elsewhere as frivolous, he may not proceed with those same claims here. Therefore, Bussie's complaint will be dismissed.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint filed by plaintiff Anthony Bussie is DISMISSED as frivolous. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases