Lietzke v. City of Montgomery et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-00726-AKB
Document 4 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
BILL LIETZKE,
Plaintiff,
VS. CITY OF MONTGOMERY; and KEVIN MURPHY, Chief;
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00726-AKB INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Bill Lietzke, a citizen of Montgomery, Alabama, filed a civil Complaint against various Alabama Defendants who allegedly defamed him by making false statements that Plaintiff was flagging down cars in Montgomery in 2020. He desires to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)1 requires the Court to screen all non-prisoner pauper complaints to determine whether they have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted before being served on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court must dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
"It is malicious per se for a pauper to file successive In Forma Pauperis suits that duplicate claims made in other pending or previous lawsuits." Brinson v. McKeeman, 992 F. Supp. 897, 912 (D. Tex. 1997); see Scott v. Weinberg, 2007 WL 963990, at *12 (D. Wash. 2007) (malicious suits include those that are "plainly abusive of the judicial process or merely repeat[] pending or
1 Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, et seq.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 1
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 2
previously litigated claims”); Thomas v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 2005 WL 1074333, at *5 (D.
Va. 2005) (repetitive lawsuit was frivolous and malicious where plaintiff was told in his previous
suit that he had not stated a claim).
The following problems prevent Plaintiff from proceeding. First, a federal court must
satisfy itself that it has authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Federal due
process requires that a nonresident defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state such
that the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). To avoid dismissal,
Plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts. Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416,
1420 (9th Cir. 1987).
Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant exists if (1) the nonresident defendant
has some connection with the forum state; (2) the claim arises out of the defendant’s forum-related
activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. See Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems
Technology Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977). Plaintiff is a citizen of Alabama,
the acts complained of occurred in Alabama, and the Defendants work and reside in Alabama or
are Alabama municipalities. No facts support a conclusion that the Court has personal jurisdiction
over the Alabama defendants.
Second, venue must also be proper. Legal actions may be brought only in
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents
of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of
the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided
in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the
court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
Case 1:25-cv-00726-AKB Document 4 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 4

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 3
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
No facts support a conclusion that venue in Idaho is appropriate for the same reasons that
personal jurisdiction does not lie.
Third, Plaintiff’s claims duplicate those made in other cases that have been dismissed with
prejudice. To date, Plaintiff has filed over 228 cases in the federal court system. Plaintiff has filed
numerous complaints in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. A complaint with the same defendants
and same allegations was dismissed with prejudice by the United States District Court for the
Middle District (Montgomery) of Alabama in Lietzke v. City of Montgomery, Alabama, and Steven
L. Reid, 2:20-cv-01030-ECM-JTA (M.D. Ala. 2023) (dismissed with prejudice and recognizing
Lietzke as a vexatious litigant).
A pro se litigant bringing a civil rights suit must have an opportunity to amend the
complaint to overcome deficiencies unless it is clear that they cannot be overcome by amendment.
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). A pro se pleading may be dismissed without
notice of the deficiencies and an opportunity to amend if a complaint “cannot be saved” by
amendment. Id. at 1129.
Based on the facts alleged in the Complaint, it does not appear that Plaintiff can come
forward with any facts showing that this Court has personal jurisdiction over this case or that venue
in Idaho is proper. Further, Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous because they duplicate other cases
adjudicated to a conclusion. See Adams v. California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688,
Case 1:25-cv-00726-AKB Document 4 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:25-cv-00726-AKB Document4 Filed 01/22/26 Page4of4

692 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted) (finding dismissal of duplicative action with prejudice did
not constitute an abuse of discretion).

Because amendment would be futile and transferring this case to the Alabama federal
district court where Plaintiff has been deemed a vexatious litigant would not be judicially efficient,
the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's in Forma Pauperis Application (Dkt. 1) is DENIED as MOOT.
2. The Complaint (Dkt. 2) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. The Court concludes from the content and timing of the Complaint that any appeal would

be taken in bad faith, because there are no conceivable non-frivolous arguments that could

save Plaintiff's case from dismissal with prejudice.

ws}

DATED: January 22, 2026

Amanda K. Brailsford
US. District Court Judge

te

LRicg:

Adams was overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4