You are on page 1of 3

Riches v. Affleck et al Doc.

Case 1:07-cv-11972-NMG Document 2 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 1 of 3



Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.
v. ) 07-11972-NMG
BEN AFFLICK, et al., )
Defendants. )



On October 17, 2007, plaintiff Jonathan Lee Riches, who is

currently incarcerated at in FCI Williamsburg in Salters, South

Carolina, filed a self-prepared complaint in which he alleges

that celebrities Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner are liable for

kidnaping and torturing Riches. Riches’s theory of liability is

that he was wrongfully convicted on charges of identify theft,

and that, because that the tax dollars of the defendants helped

finance the prosecution and imprisonment of Riches, they violated

Riches’s rights under the Sixth and Eighth amendments of the


Riches is well aware that a litigant commencing a civil

action must pay a $350.00 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

He has filed approximately one hundred eleven civil actions in

the past two years in federal district courts throughout the

country. Nonetheless, he made no effort to fulfill the fee

requirement when filing his complaint in this action. Further,
Case 1:07-cv-11972-NMG Document 2 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 2 of 3

Riches is not able to proceed in forma pauperis in this action

because he has filed more than three lawsuits that have been

dismissed as frivolous1 and he has not shown that he is in

immediate danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

Because Riches cannot proceed in forma pauperis and he has

not brought this action against a governmental entity or officer,

the complaint is not subject to screening under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Nonetheless, a court has the

inherent power to dismiss frivolous actions, regardless of the

status of the filing fee. See Mallard v. United States Dist.

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307-308 (1989); Fitzgerald v. First E.

Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363 (2d Cir. 2000). In

this case, there is no question that Riches’s claims are

frivolous. Further, “civil tort actions are not appropriate

vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal

judgments.” See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994).

Because Riches’s claims are beyond redemption, it would not serve

See, e.g., Riches v. Sheehan, C.A. No. 07-03695 (N.D.
Cal.); Riches v. Craig, C.A. No. 07-11538 (D. Del.); Riches v.
Snipes, C.A. No. 07-00376 (M.D. Fla.); Riches v. Simpson, C.A.
No. 07-01504 (M.D. Fla.); Riches v. Schiavo, C.A. No. 07-01644
(M.D. Fla.); Riches v. Doe, C.A. No. 07-20042 (S.D. Fla.); Riches
v. Bonds, C.A. No. 07-00375 (N.D. Ind.); Riches v. Guantanamo
Bay, C.A. No. 07-13041 (E.D. Mich.); Riches v. Trump, C.A. No.
07-00478 (D. Nev.); Riches v. James, C.A. No. 07-02486 (N.D.
Ohio); Riches v. Bureau of Prisons, C.A. No. 06-00194 (D.S.C.);
Riches v. Bush, C.A. No. 06-00442 (D.S.C.).

Case 1:07-cv-11972-NMG Document 2 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 3 of 3

any purpose to allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action as frivolous.

Riches is warned that if he files another complaint in this

District without paying the $350.00 filing fee, he will be

assessed the full filing fee in addition to any other sanctions

the Court deems appropriate.2

So ordered.

/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton

Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated: 10/26/07

This fee is due on upon filing of the action. See 28
U.S.C. § 1914(a) (“The clerk of each district court shall require
the parties instituting any civil action . . . to pay a filing
fee of $350 . . . .”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is
commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”); McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 607 (6th Cir. 1997) (“Even a
voluntary dismissal of a complaint or an appeal does not
eliminate a prisoner’s obligation to pay the required filing
fees. Section 1915(b)(1) [of Title 28] compels the payment of
the respective fees at the moment the complaint or notice of
appeal is filed.”).