Greene v. Salvation Army Bell Shelter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SALVATION ARMY BELL SHELTER,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:25-cv-01188-JAR
Memorandum and Order
Cedric Greene sues the Salvation Army Bell Shelter for the alleged theft of his Continuous
Positive Airway Pressure machine. He also moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Due to his abusive
litigation history, the Court denies the motion.
I. Background
Since March 5, 2025, Greene has filed more than 30 cases pro se and in forma pauperis in
this Court. See In re: Cedric Greene, No. 4:25-mc-00784-SRC (E.D. Mo. July 17, 2025), doc. 1
at 1 (listing cases). The judges of this Court have dismissed these cases preservice for reasons
including improper venue, want of jurisdiction, and a finding of maliciousness. See id. at 2. On
August 13, 2025, the Court, acting en banc, issued an order requiring Greene to obtain leave of
Court before initiating any new action in this District. See In re: Cedric Greene, No. 4:25-mc-
00784-SRC, doc. 3 at 2–3. Although this action predates the en banc order, the litigation history
detailed in that order remains relevant to the Court’s analysis.
Greene has a similar litigation history in other federal courts. In 2016, the Supreme Court
of the United States found that Greene had “repeatedly abused” its process and directed its Clerk
to refuse to accept future in forma pauperis petitions from him in noncriminal matters. See In re
Case: 4:25-cv-01188-JAR Doc. #: 4 Filed: 11/25/25 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Greene, 578 U.S. 974 (2016). In 2024, the United States Court of Federal Claims estimated that
Greene had filed more than 300 cases in federal courts throughout the country and concluded that
his abuse of the judicial system precluded him from proceeding in forma pauperis in that court.
Greene v. U.S., 169 Fed. Cl. 334, 339 (2024).
In Greene v. Sprint Nextel Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
noted filing restrictions imposed on Greene in the Ninth and Tenth Circuit courts, as well as federal
district courts in Kansas, Utah, California, and Nevada. 750 F. App’x 661, 666 & n.3 (10th Cir.
2018). The United States District Court for the Central District of California has deemed Greene
a vexatious litigant. See Greene v. Men’s Central Jail, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-02359-UA-SS, doc.
15 (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2011). This Court takes judicial notice of the foregoing records. See Stutzka
v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (noting that courts may take judicial notice
of judicial opinions).
In this case, Greene provides a California address for himself and states that the Shelter is
located in Bell, California. (ECF No. 1 at 2). He further alleges that the Shelter failed to return his
CPAP machine. Id. at 5. He seeks monetary damages. Id. at 6.
II. Discussion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) the Court “may” allow a plaintiff to commence a lawsuit
“without prepayment of fees or security therefor” if the person submits certain financial
information. “[T]he decision whether to grant or deny in forma pauperis status is within the sound
discretion of the trial court.” Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983)
(emphasis added). “An in forma pauperis litigant’s access to the courts is a matter of privilege, not
of right, and should not be used to abuse the process of the courts.” Williams v. McKenzie, 834
F.2d 152, 154 (8th Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). “To discourage the filing of baseless litigation
Case: 4:25-cv-01188-JAR Doc. #: 4 Filed: 11/25/25 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
and conserve judicial resources, this Court has a duty to deny in forma pauperis status to those
who have abused the judicial system.” Greene v. Housing Auth. of the City of Los Angeles, No.
4:25-CV-00683 HEA, 2025 WL 1392575 (E.D. Mo. May 13, 2025) (emphasis added) (first citing
In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 180 (1991); and then citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327
(1989)).
Based on Greene’s repeated abuse of the judicial system, the Court denies his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. If Greene wishes to pursue this action, he must pay the $405 filing fee
within thirty days of the date of this order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Greene’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 2) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Greene must pay the $405 filing fee in full within
thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action
without prejudice and without further notice.
Dated this 25th day of November, 2025.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01188-JAR Doc. #: 4 Filed: 11/25/25 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>