THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

ANTUAN BURRESS-EL, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : Civil Action 2:18-CV-98 

 : 

 v. : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 : 

JOHN BORN, et al., : Magistrate Judge Vascura 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

 : 

OPINION & ORDER 

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the United States Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s action 

without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(h)(3). In response to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed four notices within the 

14-day statutory timeframe allowed by the Court to file objections. (ECF Nos. 7-10). Plaintiff also 

filed an amended notice, Motion for Default Judgment and/or Objection, and amended Motion 

after the statutory timeframe allowed by the Court to file objections. (ECF Nos. 11-13). 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation, OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF Nos. 7-10), DENIES AS MOOT

Plaintiff’s amended Notice, Motion for Default Judgment and/or Objection and amended Motion 

(ECF Nos. 11-13), and declares Plaintiff a vexatious litigator. 
2 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Antuan Burress-El seeks to bring action against officials at the Ohio Department 

of Public Safety and the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. (ECF No. 4 at 4). He describes the cause 

of action as “Forgery [Deprivation of Inalienable Rights].” (ECF No. 2 at 3). 

A. The Report and Recommendation 

At the outset of this litigation, Mr. Burress-El moved to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 

No. 4 at 1). On February 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation 

holding that Mr. Burress-El should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, but recommending 

that the case should nevertheless be dismissed. (ECF No. 4 at 1). The Report and Recommendation 

offered the following reasons for the suggested disposition: First, the Amended Complaint 

provided insufficient factual content or context to allow a Court reasonably to infer that Defendants 

violated Plaintiff’s rights, failing to satisfy the pleading requirements in Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8(a) (ECF No. 4 at 5). Second, the allegations in the Amended Complaint were “so 

nonsensical as to render [the] Amended Complaint frivolous.” (Id.). Finally, the Court does not 

have jurisdiction because forgery is a state law claim and the parties do not meet the requirements 

for diversity jurisdiction. (Id.). 

B. Plaintiff’s Objections 

On February 26, 2018, Mr. Buress-El filed four objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation. They are styled as “notice: jurisdiction” (ECF No. 7), “notice: venue” (ECF 

No. 8), “notice: signature” (ECF No. 9), and “notice: ‘right to pursue a claim.’” (ECF No. 10). 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

For the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s Complaint 

to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, or 
3 

any portion of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

If a party objects within the timeframe allotted in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation, the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 

or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). After such determination, the Court “may accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Plaintiff’s Objections 

A pro se party’s pleadings must be construed liberally and are held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 

(1972). Mr. Burress-El’s filings (ECF Nos. 7-10) therefore will be construed as objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Even so, none of the filings responds to the 

deficiencies the Magistrate Judge correctly identified in Mr. Burress-El’s complaint. In short: Mr. 

Burress-El does not state a claim, but to the extent he did, it is frivolous, and to the extent it could 

be construed as non-frivolous, this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. His complaint 

must be DISMISSED. 

B. Plaintiff’s Prior Lawsuit Filings 

On April 12, 2018, a United States Magistrate Judge wrote a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint in a separate lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice. 

Burress-El v. Kelley, 2018 WL 2716315 at *3 (S.D. OH Apr. 12, 2018). Citing four prior lawsuits 

filed in this Court and two additional lawsuits under the name “Antuan L. Burress”, the Magistrate 
4 

Judge noted that virtually all of the lawsuits were dismissed at the screening level. Id. at *1 n.1. In 

addition, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff presented similar claims in several of his prior 

lawsuits. Id. at *2 n.3. 

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation warned Mr. Burress-El that 

additional attempts to file similar lawsuits will not only be summarily dismissed at the screening 

level but may invite sanctions from this Court if deemed to be vexatious. Id. at *3. The United 

States District Judge reviewing the Report and Recommendation adopted the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendations, including the warning to Plaintiff. Burress-El v. Kelley, 2018 WL 2688437 at 

*1 (S.D. OH June 5, 2018). 

This Court will first determine whether Mr. Burress-El’s conduct is vexatious. A party’s 

right of access to the Court is not absolute or unconditional. In re Moncier, 488 Fed.Appx. 57 (6th 

Cir. 2012). Litigants who continually file frivolous lawsuits pertaining to the same matter can be 

deemed a vexatious litigator and can be subject to “pre-filing restrictions” for future lawsuits. 

Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998). Courts have the discretion to 

“prevent a pro se litigant from filing an in forma pauperis complaint where such a litigant has a 

long track record of filing frivolous suits.” Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 262 (6th Cir. 

1990). 

Plaintiff has repeatedly brought actions in this Court, each time alleging § 1983 claims 

against various defendants, all of which were either dismissed after screening or have a pending 

Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal after screening. These actions include: 

 Burress v. Hamilton County, et al., 1:14-cv-390 (complaint alleging § 1983 claims 

against Defendants Hamilton County, James Engelhardt, James Zieverink, Anthony 

Carter, and Simon L. Leis, Jr., that was dismissed with prejudice after screening); 

 Burress v. Hamilton County, et al., 1:14-cv-391 (complaint alleging § 1983 claims 

against Defendants Hamilton County Office of Child Support Enforcement, Hamilton 
5 

County Juvenile Courts, Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services, Summit 

Behavioral Hospital, Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Hamilton County Jobs and 

Family Services, and the State of Ohio that was dismissed with prejudice after 

screening); 

 Burress-El v. Shabazz, et al., 1:17-cv-866 (complaint alleging § 1983 claims against 

Defendants Ayesha Shabazz and Nanci Brocker for which a Report and 

Recommendation suggesting dismissal with prejudice is currently pending); 

 Burress-El v. Hamilton County Juvenile Courts, et al., 1:18-cv-40 (complaint alleging 

§ 1983 claims against Defendants Hamilton County Juvenile Courts for which a Report 

and Recommendation suggesting dismissal with prejudice is currently pending); and, 

 Burress-El v. Kelly, et al., 1:18-cv-254 (complaint alleging § 1983 claims against 

Defendants David Kelley and Melissa Powers that was dismissed with prejudice after 

screening and resulted in a warning that “additional attempts to file similar lawsuits 

will not only be summarily dismissed at the screening level, but may invite sanctions 

from the Court if deemed vexatious). 

Although the ability to file in forma pauperis is an important tool to ensure equal access to 

justice, it must also be noted that “litigant[s] whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the 

public, lack an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive 

lawsuits.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). In considering the above litany of 

actions, it is evident that not only has Mr. Burress-El depleted judicial resources, but he has also 

repeatedly forced the public to bear the costs of his unavailing efforts to litigate. The Court thus 

finds that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigator. The Court declines to assess any monetary sanctions at 

this juncture, but finds that pre-filing restrictions are appropriate. See, e.g., Feathers v. Chevron 

U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998) (noting that pre-filing restrictions are common in 

“matters with a history of repetitive or vexatious litigation). 

It is therefore hereby ORDERED that Mr. Burress-El is barred from filing any further 

actions in this Court without submitting a certification from an attorney that his claims are not 

frivolous, malicious, or repetitive. 
6 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and 

DISMISSES the case with prejudice. Because the matter is dismissed, all other pending motions 

are MOOT. (ECF Nos. 11-13). Further, Mr. Burress-El is declared a VEXATIOUS 

LITIGATOR and may not submit further filings with this Court without attorney certification. 

The Clerk’s Office is hereby DIRECTED to reject any filings that Mr. Burress-El attempts to 

submit that lack such certification, with the exception of any filings Mr. Burress-El is otherwise 

entitled to submit in the cases still pending before the Southern District of Ohio (Burress-El v. 

Shabazz, et al., 1:17-cv-866 and Burress-El v. Hamilton County Juvenile Courts, et al., 1:18-cv40). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Algenon L. Marbley 

DATED: October 23, 2018 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE