United States District Court, D. Maryland
JEROME L. GRIMES Plaintiff,
MRS. ENGRAM (Clerk Process II Supervisor) JANE DOE (Clerk Process II) DISTRICT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY (Clerk's Office) Defendants.
Xinis United States District Judge
above-captioned complaint was filed by Jerome Grimes on April
10, 2017, together with a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. ECF Nos. 1 & 2. Grimes is confined at the
Escambia County Jail in Pensacola, Florida.
pro se action appears to complain that on March 8, 2017,
defendants “covertly” filed a false bomb threat
or “bomb topic of discussion” with the Rockville,
Maryland Police Department to obtain illegal arrest and
extradition warrants and to conduct an illegal seizure of
Grimes' personal property. Grimes generally references a
case filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, discusses traffic court cases
allegedly filed against him in Montgomery County, Maryland,
and mentions his arrest and extradition on bomb threats and
its connection to “covert post-World Trade Center (WTC)
terrorism against small business owners seeking to do
business with the WTC…” ECF No. 1, pp. 3-4.
Grimes asks that criminal charges be filed against defendants
and that they be required to submit to a polygraph test. He
further asks that the bomb threat extradition be
“quashed, ” so that he can return to graduate
school, and that he be awarded damages. Id., p. 4-5
The only Montgomery County cases involving Grimes relate to
traffic incidents occurring in 2016. Further, the court has
examined the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(“PACER”) involving federal cases. It takes
judicial notice that Grimes is litigious and has filed
hundreds of cases in the federal courts. In Grimes v.
Haney, et al., Civil Action No. JSW(PR)-15-436 (N.D.
Cal.), United States District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White of
the Northern District of California noted that “[o]n
May 18, 2000, this Court informed [Grimes] that under the
‘three-strikes' provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) he generally is ineligible to proceed in forma
pauperis in federal court with civil actions filed while he
is incarcerated.” (citing Grimes v. Oakland Police
Dep't, Civil Action No. CW-00-1100 (N.D. Cal.).
Judge White further observed that “in 2003 alone
[Grimes'] failure to pay the full filing fee and to state
cognizable claims for relief had resulted in the dismissal of
approximately thirty-six actions under § 1915(g).”
Grimes v. Haney, et al., Civil Action No.
JSW(PR)-15-436. at ECF No. 4. Further, in 2007, United States
District Court Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District
of California observed that “[t]he Court had routinely
granted [Grimes]leave to amend to pay the full filing fee and
to state cognizable claims for relief but he has habitually
failed to do so. For example, in 2003 alone Plaintiff's
failure to comply resulted in the dismissal of approximately
thirty-six actions under § 1915(g).” See
Grimes v. Wan, et al, . Civil Action No. CW (PR)-07-
1726 (N.D. Cal.). Additionally, in the Western District of
Louisiana, the District Court noted that Grimes has
“filed more than 350 complaints and appeals [, and]
[t]hree or more of them have been dismissed as
frivolous.” See Grimes v. Ms. Lewis, et al.,
Civil Action No. EEF-MLH-12-3159 (W.D. La.).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a prisoner is prohibited from
filing a civil action if he "has, on 3 or more
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Grimes' filing history in the federal courts, he is
barred under § 1915(g) from filing prisoner complaints
in forma pauperis unless he can aver that he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. The instant
complaint is rambling and incoherent, and Grimes does not
allege that he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury. Grimes is forewarned that should he attempt to file
future civil rights actions in this court, they must be
accompanied by the civil filing fee. Further, a complaint
filed with an indigency application must establish that
Grimes is in imminent danger of serious physical harm.
Grimes' motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall be
denied and his complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice
by separate Order.
 The court has examined the court
docket for Montgomery County, Maryland, which reflects Grimes
having been cited for several traffic violations to include
failure to display his license to uniform police on demand,
driving without a required license and authorization, driving
on a revoked out-of-state license, driving while license is
suspended, driving on a suspended out-of-state license,
failure to attach vehicle registration plates at front and
rear, failure to display registration card upon demand by
police, and driving without current registration plates and
validation tabs. State v. Grimes, Citation Nos.
16PODHH, 16QODHH, 16RODHH, 16SODHH, ...