IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DIVISION OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION MICAH ANGEL PLAINTIFF v. 3:22-CV-00344-BRW CRAIGHEAD COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER A district court has the authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to state a claim.1 Plaintiff asserts that Defendants refused to walk her to meet with a judge.2 Because Plaintiff’s complaint is nonsensical, frivolous, and states no cause of action against Defendants for which relief may be granted, this case is DISMISSED. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is MOOT. Additionally, I am much inclined to impose a sanction requiring Plaintiff to pay a filing

fee before initiating cases in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Since 2016, Plaintiff has filed numerous cases in the EDAR.3 She filed fourteen cases on December 30, 2022. To date, every

1See Smith v. Boyd,

(8th Cir. 1991). 2Doc. No. 2. 3Angel v. Jonesboro Police Department, No. 3:16-cv-00203-DPM; Angel v. Craighead County Sheriff’s Department, No. 3:16-cv-00204-DPM; Angel, et al. v. Jonesboro Police Department, No. 3:16-cv-00232-KGB; Angel v. Jonesboro Police Department, No. 3:17-cv-00133-DPM; Angel v. Bowers et al, No. 3:18-cv-00121-KGB; Angel v. Bowers, No. 3:18-cv-00076-DPM; Angel v. Rutledge, No. 3:22-cv-00147-LPR; Angel v. Rutledge, et al., No. 3:22-cv-00264-BSM; Angel v. Barber, No. 3:22-cv-00330-BRW; Angel v. Dobbins, No. 3:22-cv-00332-BRW; Angel v. Johnson, No. 3:22-cv-00333-BRW; Angel v. Jonesboro Police Department, No. 3:22-cv-00337-BRW; Angel v. Arkansas State Police, No. 3:22-cv-00338-BRW; Angel v. Craighead County Assessors Office, No. 3:22-cv-00339-BRW; Angel v. United States Postal Service, No. 3:22-cv-00340-BRW; and Angel v. Jonesboro City Code Enforcement, No. 3:22-cv-00342-BRW. case that has been addressed has been dismissed as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, or for failure to prosecute. In every case, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. She has never paid a filing fee. “Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or

frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources.”4 A court must “see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.”5 Notably, “paupers filing pro se petitions are not subject to the financial considerations—filing fees and attorney’s fees—that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions.”6 This lack of financial consideration appears to be a factor here, because without the considerations of filing fees or attorney’s fees, Plaintiff continues to file frivolous cases. Accordingly, she is on notice that if she continues to proceed in the manner similar to her past, it is very likely that in forma pauperis will be denied, and she will be required to pay a filing fee before a case may proceed. IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2023.

Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4In re McDonald,

, 184 (1989). 5Id. 6Id.