receive disability payments anywhere in the United States. The
court is unable to surmise any constitutional violation
stemming from the plaintiff's allegation, nor is the court
aware of any other basis for federal jurisdiction.
(10) In Pusch v. U.S.D.A., Case Number 93-3002, the plaintiff
sues regarding an "invasion" by U.S.D.A. planes and cargo
trucks on the Cities of Springfield and St. Louis. The
plaintiff's claims are clearly delusional. The court need not
accept as true factual allegations which "rise to the level of
the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there
are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them."
Denton v. Hernandez, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1730,
118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).
(11) In Pusch v. Russia, et al., Case Number 93-3006, the
plaintiff seeks to sue Russia, Japan and the C.I.A. for an
"electrical invasion." The plaintiff reports that orange lights
and black windows are following her and that she is under
surveillance. Again, the plaintiff's fantastic allegations are
not creditable. (The plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her
complaint to delete Russia and add China as a defendant is
denied as moot.)
(12) In Pusch v. Kopec, Case Number 93-3008, (13) Pusch v.
Stone, Case Number 93-3009, and (14) Pusch v. Gillespie, Case
Number 93-3010, the plaintiff sues three attorneys for refusing
to represent her. If the plaintiff sought representation for
the groundless lawsuits at issue, then the defendants properly
declined to assist the plaintiff — they might well have faced
Rule 11 sanctions or other professional discipline had they
filed a baseless lawsuit. In any case, the plaintiff has been
reminded numerous times that a defendant must have acted under
color of state law to be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 638, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1922, 64
L.Ed.2d 572 (1980); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473,
5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961).
(15) In Pusch v. Mental Health Center of Central Illinois,
Case Number 93-3011, the plaintiff sues eighteen mental health
care officials for their alleged refusal to allow her to obtain
a driver's license. While a citizen has a protected property
interest in his or her driver's license, see Mackey v. Montrym,
443 U.S. 1, 11, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 2617, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979)
(citations omitted), the state may revoke a license if it
follows proper procedures. Thomas v. Fiedler, 884 F.2d 990 (7th
The one-sentence complaint provides no factual information
regarding the plaintiff's claims. It is unclear what action
the defendants took; the plaintiff also has failed to indicate
whether her driver's license was revoked or she was simply
barred from obtaining a permit. Since various physicians are
named as witnesses or defendants, the court presumes that the
plaintiff has a medical or psychiatric condition or takes
medication which the defendants merely certified would make
driving dangerous. Regardless, the defendants are not state
actors; the Secretary of State, and not private physicians,
issue and revoke driver's licenses. The plaintiff's vague
complaint does not state a cause of action.
(16) In Pusch v. Kennedy, Case Number 93-3012, the plaintiff
sues U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts for failing to
respond to her requests for legal assistance. Apparently, the
plaintiff mailed copies of the aforementioned legal documents
to the defendant Kennedy hoping that he would file the
materials in the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiff may not sue
Kennedy, a Massachusetts or Washington, D.C., resident, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. See
venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In any case, the
plaintiff's cause of action against Senator Kennedy is
(17) In Pusch v. Springfield Police Dept., Case Number
93-3015, the plaintiff sues a Springfield police officer, the
State of Illinois and/or the Springfield Police
evidently for failing to give the plaintiff reward money in
1988. The complaint states in its entirety:
I called Crimestoppers and reported all the drug
addicts I knew without my monetary relief. And I
believe there were arrests.
Even assuming that the defendants failed to pay the plaintiff
reward money rightfully owed to her (a highly doubtful
proposition), the complaint is time-barred. As the court
previously has explained to the plaintiff, civil rights
actions must be brought within two years of the date of
injury. Loy v. Clamme, 804 F.2d 405, 408 (7th Cir. 1986) (per
(18) In Pusch v. State of Illinois, Case Number 93-3016, the
plaintiff again sues a Springfield police officer, the State of
Illinois and/or the Springfield Police Department, this time
for their failure to prosecute a man who allegedly raped the
plaintiff in 1985. The claim is barred by the statute of
limitations; regardless, "a private citizen lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of
another." S. v. D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 35
L.Ed.2d 536 (1973); see also, Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83,
102 S.Ct. 69, 70 L.Ed.2d 65 (1981).
(19) In Pusch v. McFarland Zone Center, Case Number 93-3017,
the plaintiff sues the McFarland Zone Center, evidently a
hospital or residential treatment center, and several of its
staff members. The plaintiff contends that she was not allowed
to vote in March 1992. The plaintiff does not indicate how the
defendants prevented her from voting; furthermore, a private
corporation does not act under color of state law and thus
cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Ezpeleta v.
Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 800 F.2d 119 (7th Cir. 1986).
(20) In Pusch v. James Edgar, Case Number 93-3020, the
plaintiff sues Illinois' governor for his alleged participation
in the "electrical invasion" described in Case Number 93-3006
For the reasons stated above, the plaintiff will not be
allowed to proceed on her chimerical allegations. The
plaintiff's petitions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
each of her twelve new cases will be denied; furthermore, each
of the complaints will be dismissed with prejudice.
As a final concern, the plaintiff is hereby enjoined from
filing any documents in the future without first obtaining
leave of court. Access to the federal courts is not intended
to provide a diversion or harassment tool for bored people.
"Federal courts have both the inherent power and
constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from
conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III
functions." Matter of Davis, 878 F.2d 211, 212 (7th Cir. 1989),
citing In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 n. 8, 109 S.Ct. 993,
996 n. 8, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989).
The plaintiff's meritless lawsuits, marked by numerous and
repetitive pleadings, as well as frivolous motions to appeal
the court's dismissals, consume a vast amount of the court's
limited time and resources. The plaintiff's lawsuits divert
attention from other pending matters, including legitimate
pro se proceedings. In addition, the plaintiff has placed a
heavy burden on the Clerk, engaging in disruptive behavior in
the Clerk's Office for hours at a time. The plaintiff has
ignored the court's previous admonitions to show restraint in
her filings. Bearing in mind the plaintiff's constitutional
right of access to the courts, the court hereby enters the
following regulatory injunction:
The plaintiff is barred from filing any future lawsuits,
letters, pleadings, or motions unless she first obtains leave
of the court to file a given document. Any motions for leave
to file must either: (a) be prepared and filed by a licensed
attorney or (b) if filed: by the plaintiff pro se, must be
accompanied by a memorandum of law in
support of the plaintiff's claims. The memorandum must include
an affidavit certifying that the claims the plaintiff wishes
to present are new and have never before been raised in any
court are not barred by the statute of limitations. Lysiak v.
C.I.R., 816 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1987); Green v. Warden, U.S.
Penitentiary, 699 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1983).
In short, the plaintiff must research the basis for her
motions and lawsuits BEFORE seeking leave to file. While the
court has sympathy for the plaintiff, who appears sincerely to
believe that she has been a victim of persecution and neglect,
federal litigation is not the answer to the plaintiff's
problems. Although the court has been reluctant to impose
monetary sanctions in the past, the court will no longer
hesitate to do so if bombarded with future frivolous pleadings
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's pleadings for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the above-captioned
causes are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each of the above-captioned
complaints is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brenda Pusch is ENJOINED from
filing any document with the Clerk without first obtaining
leave of court to do so. Any motion for leave to file must be
accompanied by the proposed pleading and must either: (a) be
prepared and filed by a licensed attorney on behalf of the
plaintiff, or (b) if filed by the plaintiff pro se, include a
memorandum of law in support of the motion showing that the
plaintiff has researched her claim and has a meritorious cause
of action not barred by the statute of limitations, as well as
an affidavit certifying that the claim has never before been
brought in any court.