Plaintiff Chibueze Anaeme moves to proceed in forma pauperis without the full prepayment of filing fees in his suit against approximately 250 defendants, including the United States of America, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy whose office is in Illinois, law enforcement bodies in the States of California and Washington, public and private transportation services in California and Arizona and hundreds of individual security officers. He alleges negligence, conspiracy, disparate treatment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, primarily due to the allegedly-wrongful denial of his application for transfer of his pharmaceutic license to the State of Oregon. For the following reasons, Anaeme's motion is denied and his complaint is dismissed.
Anaeme asserts that his assets include a house and car whose ownership is in controversy with his ex-wife, which does not allow the Court to conclude he is unable to pay the filing fees. Nevertheless, Section 1915 requires the Court to review the claims of a plaintiff who seeks to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the action if it is frivolous or malicious, if the plaintiff seeks damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief, or if the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see also Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109 (7th Cir. 2003). Anaeme's suit makes primarily the same allegations that he made in four other suits he filed in the Northern District of Illinois in the past few weeks, three of which have been dismissed: 12-C-3127 filed April 27, 2012, and dismissed May 4, 2012; 12-C-3463 filed May 5, 2012, and dismissed May 21, 2012; 12; 12-C-3585 filed May 10, 2012, and dismissed May 15, 2012; and 12-C-3765 filed May 15, 2012. In fact, "Anaeme has been warned, time and time again, that these types of pleadings are frivolous." Anaeme v. United States, No. 12-CV-3583, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69325, *2-3 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2012) (citing Anaeme v. United States, No. 2:11-CV-01573-JCM, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15957, 2012 WL 424600 (D. Nev. Feb. 9, 2012); Anaeme v. United States, No. 3:12-CV-418-ST, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52894, 2012 WL 1282169 (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2012); Anaeme v. Maine Bd. of Pharm., No. 1:11-CV-00375-DBH, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129773, 2011 WL 5507207 (D. Me. Nov. 4, 2011); Anaeme v. United States, No. 3:11-CV-1160-ST, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133733, 2011 WL 5439439 (D. Or. Oct. 7, 2011); Anaeme v. Med. Staffing Network, No. 05-434 JB/LFG, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39178, 2005 WL 3665085 (D.N.M. Sept. 29, 2005); Anaeme v. Med. Staffing Network Allied, 204 F. App'x 759 (10th Cir. 2006) ("This is not the first appeal by Mr. Anaeme dismissed for frivolousness, for lack of appellate jurisdiction, or for failure to prosecute. See Anaeme v. Peterson, No. 05-2360, 210 Fed. Appx. 751, 2006 WL 3200918 (10th Cir. 2006) (dismissed as frivolous); Anaeme v. Peterson, No. 04-2297 (10th Cir. Sept. 14, 2005) (dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction); Anaeme v. Peterson, No. 04-2274 (10th Cir. Feb. 10, 2005) (dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction); Anaeme v. Presbyterian Health, No. 00-2007 (10th Cir. Apr. 4, 2000) (dismissed for failure to prosecute). We caution Mr. Anaeme that a continued pattern of filing frivolous or abusive appeals may subject him to filing restrictions in this or other courts."))). Consequently, Anaeme's suit is frivolous and must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). His motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, his complaint is dismissed with prejudice and his case is closed.