Prather v. Vance et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
KELLI PRATHER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-679
Judge Douglas R. Cole
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 	Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
Defendants.
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Kelli Prather, a federal inmate who is incarcerated at the FMC Lexington, has
three pro se prisoner civil rights cases pending before this Court:
1. 	Kelli Prather v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-679 (S.D.
Ohio Sept. 16, 2025);
2. Kelli Prather v. United States Senator Jon Husted, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-809
(S.D. Ohio Nov. 7, 2025); and
3. Kelli Prather v. Vice President J.D. Vance, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-874 (S.D.
Ohio Dec. 1, 2025).
All three cases were deemed related and assigned to the Honorable Douglas R. Cole and the
undersigned Magistrate Judge. 	By separate order in Case No. 1:25-cv-679, Plaintiff has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8).
Plaintiff’s Complaints are difficult to read, and it is often unclear what type of claims she
is trying to bring. In any event, because the Complaints in Case Nos. 1:25-cv-679; 1:25-cv-809;
and 	1:25-cv-874 	contain 	a 	pattern 	of 	duplicate 	and 	overlapping 	allegations, 	the 	Court
RECOMMENDS that Case No. 1:25-cv-809 and Case No. 1:25-cv-874 be DISMISSED without
prejudice. 	To proceed with Case No. 1:25-cv-679, Plaintiff will have to file an amended
complaint that is more concise and conforms with the federal and local rules of civil procedure.
Case: 1:25-cv-00874-DRC-KAJ Doc #: 7 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
She will have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to do so.
I. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-679
In the instant case, Plaintiff filed a Complaint on September 16, 2025, against the United
States of America and Fifth Third Bank, Inc. She raised claims arguing that Defendant Fifth Third
Bank subjected her to years of discriminatory loan practices that led to her being criminally
charged for bank fraud, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and making a false statement on a
loan application (S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:21-cr-000381). 	(Doc. 1). 	On November 25, 2025, the
Undersigned issued a Report and Recommendations recommending that the Complaint be
dismissed with prejudice and that Plaintiff’s state-law claims be dismissed without prejudice.
(Doc. 9 at 62).
In response, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend on December 19, 2025, requesting: (1) Vice
President J.D. Vance be substituted for Defendant United States of America; (2) 45 claims be
added to the Complaint; and (3) Case No. 1:25-cv-679 be merged with Case No. 1:25-cv-809.
(Doc. 11). She attached a 54-page proposed amended complaint raising 45 claims against over 50
different defendants involving alleged incidents that occurred in 2 different states over a span of
25 years. (Doc. 11-1).
A 	few 	days 	later, 	on 	December 	22, 	2025, 	Plaintiff 	objected 	to 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation, though she failed to offer any specific objection. (Doc. 12). She also moved
to stay collection of the full filing fee and to stay court proceedings while Plaintiff tried to obtain
counsel. (Doc. 13). She also filed another motion to amend that reiterated the same three requests
raised in her other motion to amend. (Doc. 14).
Then, on December 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that raised the same
Case: 1:25-cv-00874-DRC-KAJ Doc #: 7 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
claims and allegations set forth in her original Doc. 1 Complaint (only this time typed instead of
handwritten). (Doc. 17).
Two days later, on January 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed another Amended Complaint, totaling
60 pages, that simply combined her Doc. 17 and Doc. 11 Complaints. (Doc. 18). That same day,
she filed an “Amendment” making the same three requests raised in Docs. 11 and 14. (Doc. 19).
And she filed another “Request” to stay collection of the full filing fee (Doc. 20), as well as another
Objection to the Report and Recommendation that raised no specific objection (Doc. 21).
Finally, on February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed yet another Amended Complaint that appears
to be a repeat of the Doc. 17 Amended Complaint.
II. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-809
In Case No. 1:25-cv-809, Plaintiff filed a 57-page Complaint raising many of the same
claims raised in Case No. 1:25-cv-679. (Doc. 1-1).
III. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-874
In Case No. 1:25-cv-874, Plaintiff filed a 274-page Complaint against 49 defendants, 90
civil cover sheets, and service documents totaling 180 pages. (Doc. 1). This Complaint appears
to include the same allegations set forth in Case Nos. 1:25-cv-679 and 1:25-cv-809.
IV. 	Order for Amended Complaint
As noted above, the Complaints filed by Plaintiff in Case Nos. 1:25-cv-679, 1:25-cv-804,
and 1:25-cv-874 set forth allegations against federal, state, and local officials, as well as other
private individuals and entities. As best as the Undersigned can tell, the Amended Complaint in
the instant case, Case No. 1:25-cv-679 (Doc. 11-1), raises allegations against numerous federal,
state, and local officials stemming from Plaintiff’s allegedly sabotaged bid to run for federal office,
Case: 1:25-cv-00874-DRC-KAJ Doc #: 7 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
the defamation of her character, and resulting criminal charges for election crimes. She also raises
claims challenging the conditions of her confinement at the Hamilton County Justice Center,
including deliberate indifference to serious medical conditions, deprivation of her right to a speedy
trial, and infringement upon her quest for a presidential pardon. She rehashes challenges to her
federal CARES Act conviction. And she raises assorted allegations against officials in New York,
as well as federal, state, local officials in Ohio, alleging malfeasance in finance, real estate, and
community development projects targeted at Plaintiff in retaliation for speaking out against local
corruption and police abuses.
Since the time that the Undersigned issued the Doc. 9 Report and Recommendations
addressing Plaintiff’s initial Doc. 1 Complaint, Plaintiff has filed two motions to amend, five
amended complaints, two motions to stay collection of the filing fee, and two additional cases:
Case Nos. 1:25-cv-809 and 1:25-cv-874. At this point in the proceedings, Plaintiff’s allegations
span multiple documents in three cases and appear to concern separate and distinct transactions,
occurrences, and defendants.
For all these reasons, the best course is for two of Plaintiff’s duplicative, sprawling cases
to be dismissed and for her to amend her Complaint in this case to comply with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8. Accordingly, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that Case No. 1:25-cv-809
and Case No. 1:25-cv-874 be DISMISSED without prejudice. And the Court ORDERS Plaintiff
to file an Amended Complaint on this case that adheres to the following guidelines.
According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of
the claim.” Plaintiff’s amended complaint must not exceed 20 total pages in length and must set
forth in clear, short, and concise terms the names of each defendant, the specific claims for relief
Case: 1:25-cv-00874-DRC-KAJ Doc #: 7 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
attributable to each defendant, and the factual allegations supporting each claim. And the factual
allegations and claims must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Fed. R. Civ. P.
20(a)(2). Permitting a prisoner to assert unrelated claims against different defendants in the same
action would undermine the PLRA’s purpose of curbing frivolous prisoner filings and dilute the
impact of the statute’s fee payment and three-strike provisions. See Gresham v. Washington, No.
1:15-cv-1067, 2016 WL 81696, at *7 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2016) (collecting cases). 	If Plaintiff
wishes to seek relief based on unrelated claims, she must do so in separate actions. 	Finally, as
required by S.D. Ohio Local Rule 5.1, the complaint should be legible and double-spaced.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, to FILE
a concise, Rule 8-compliant complaint. The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a civil
complaint packet and a copy of the Southern District of Ohio’s Guide for Pro Se Civil Litigants.
If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order—or files an amended complaint that does
not align with the guidelines above—the Court shall dismiss this case for want of prosecution.
In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir. 1997). 	Should she need additional
time to comply with the Order, Plaintiff should file a motion for extension of time. 	Further,
Plaintiff is DIRECTED NOT TO FILE any additional complaints or pleadings while the Court
awaits the filing of the amended complaint directed by this Order. 	Plaintiff is WARNED that
duplicative or frivolous filings, or filings that contravene the Local or Federal Rules, may be struck
from the docket or returned to her.
V. 	Motions to Amend and Amended Petitions
Also pending before the Court are two motions to amend (Docs. 11 and 14) and five
amended complaints (Docs 11-1, 17, 18, 19, and 23). 	Because the Undersigned has ordered
Case: 1:25-cv-00874-DRC-KAJ Doc #: 7 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, Docs. 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 23 are DENIED without
prejudice as moot.
VI. 	Motions to Stay Collection of Filing Fee
Finally, Plaintiff has filed motions to stay collection of the full filing fee. (1:25-cv-679,
Docs. 13 and 20). By separate order, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Doc. 8). Plaintiff asks the Court to stay the collection of the fulling filing fee until further notice.
The Court cannot grant that motion.
This Court’s authority is constrained by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), which
modified the statute governing federal in forma pauperis civil complaints brought by prisoners “in
hopes of deterring prisoners (whom Congress determined to be a particularly litigious group) from
filing frivolous lawsuits and potentially wasting the courts’ very limited resources” by making
those unable to pay the full filing fee upfront ultimately “bear the cost of the full amount” of that
fee by way of monthly installment payments from their prison accounts. See Ippolito v. Buss, 293
F. Supp.2d 881, 882–83 & nn.2–3 (N.D. Ind. 2003) (and authorities cited therein); see also
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997).1 Under the PLRA, the moment a
prisoner files his complaint with the Court, he becomes “responsible for the filing fee” and
“waive[s] any objection to the withdrawal of funds from his trust fund account to pay court fees
and costs.” Patterson v. Mackie, No. 13-15149, 2014 WL 1478437, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 15,
2014); see also McGore, 114 F.3d at 605 (“by filing the complaint . . ., the prisoner waives any
objection to the fee assessment by the district court” and “to the withdrawal of funds from the trust
1 The Undersigned notes that McGore has been overruled in part on other grounds by the Supreme Court in Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), and the Sixth Circuit in LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944 (6th Cir. 2013). The citations
to McGore that are contained in this Order are proper because they do not pertain to the issues addressed in either
Jones or LaFountain.
Case: 1:25-cv-00874-DRC-KAJ Doc #: 7 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
account by prison officials to pay the prisoner’s court fees and costs”).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) provides in pertinent part:
After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner shall be required to make
monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the
prisoner’s account. 	The agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward
payments from the prisoner’s account to the clerk of the court each time the amount
in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.
The PLRA contains no language suggesting that the courts have authority or any discretion to
allow prisoners to depart or deviate from the payment schedule explicitly set out in that statutory
provision. Cf. Ippolito, 293 F. Supp.2d at 883 (“there is nothing [in § 1915(b)(2)] suggesting that
the court may depart from the explicit language of the statute [or] that a prisoner may deviate from
the payment schedule”). The Court therefore should deny Plaintiff’s motions to stay collection of
the full filing fee.
The Court should also deny the motion to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to make one
combined 20% monthly installment payment for all of the cases in which she has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	Cf. Pinson v. Samuels, 761 F.3d 1, 7–8 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
(pointing out that under the “per person” approach to the collection of filing fees under the PLRA,
“a prisoner would satisfy his obligations sequentially, first fully satisfying his obligation for his
earliest case before moving on to the next one, at no time making any payment that would take his
cumulative payments for that month beyond an overarching twenty-percent ceiling”; in contrast
under the “per case” approach, the prisoner must “make a separate installment payment for each
filing fee incurred as long as no individual payment exceeds twenty percent of his monthly
income”) (emphasis in original), abrogated on other grounds, Pinson v. United States Department
of Justice, 964 F.3d 65, 69–70 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
Case: 1:25-cv-00874-DRC-KAJ Doc #: 7 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

8
The PLRA does not expressly state whether the fee is to be collected on a “per case” or
“per prisoner” basis, and the circuits used to be split as to the answer. See Pinson, 761 F.3d at 7–
8. In Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016), the Supreme Court settled the dispute, holding
that the monthly installment payments are to be assessed on a per-case basis. This approach, the
Court reasoned, “more vigorously serves the statutory objective of containing prisoner litigation.”
Id. at 90. Therefore, because the Supreme Court has clarified that monthly installment payments
under the PLRA are to be assessed on a per case basis, Plaintiff’s motion should also be denied to
the extent that she requests that the Court consolidate her monthly payments.
Accordingly, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motions to stay collection
of the full filing fee (Docs. 13, 20) be DENIED.
VII. 	Conclusion
The allegations set forth in the Complaints in Case No. 1:25-cv-809 and Case No. 1:25-cv-
874 duplicate the allegations set forth in the instant Complaint, Case No. 1:25-cv-679. It is thus
RECOMMENDED that Case No. 1:25-cv-809 and Case No. 1:25-cv-874 be DISMISSED
without prejudice and TERMINATED on the docket. The Undersigned opts for dismissal over
consolidation so that Plaintiff does not have to pay two filing fees to bring one dispute to the Court.
Further, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motions to stay collection of
the filing fee (Docs. 13 and 20) be DENIED. 	And Plaintiff’s motions to amend or amended
petitions (Docs. 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 23) are DENIED without prejudice as moot.
Finally, Plaintiff is DIRECTED NOT TO FILE any additional complaints or pleadings
while the Court awaits the filing of the amended complaint directed by this Order.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a civil complaint packet and the Southern
Case: 1:25-cv-00874-DRC-KAJ Doc #: 7 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

9
District of Ohio’s Guide for Pro Se Civil Litigants. 	The Clerk is also DIRECTED to file this
Order and Report and Recommendation on Case No. 1:25-cv-809 and Case No. 1:25-cv-874, in
addition to Case No. 1:25-cv-679.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 20, 2026 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Procedure on Objections
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting
authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence, or may
recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The 	parties 	are 	specifically 	advised 	that 	failure 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo and operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the
District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. 	See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 1:25-cv-00874-DRC-KAJ Doc #: 7 Filed: 02/20/26 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>