govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_26-cv-00506-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
VICTORIA HALL,  
 
 Plaintiff,  
v.  
 
JULIE POLEY, et al.,  
 
 Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 No. 4:26-cv-00506-SEP 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Victoria Hall’s Application to Proceed in 
District Court Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs.  See Doc. [2].  For the reasons set forth 
below, the Application is denied and the Complaint dismissed. 
“The federal in forma pauperis statute, [28 U.S.C. § 1915], is designed to ensure that 
indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.”  Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 
319, 324 (1989) (italics added).  Section 1915(e) directs a court to screen a complaint when filed 
together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.  A court shall dismiss a case at any time if: 
1) the allegation of poverty is untrue; 2) the action is frivolous or malicious; 3) the action fails to 
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 4) the action seeks monetary relief against an 
immune defendant.  28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).  Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges nothing more 
than that Defendants violated someone’s Fourteenth Amendment rights.  Doc. [1] at 1.1 
 Even construing Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally, her allegations fail to state a claim.  See 
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (pro se complaint “must be held to less stringent 
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[]”).  Even a pro se “complaint must contain 
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”  
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 
544, 570 (2007)).  A plaintiff “must give enough details about the subject-matter of the case to 
present a story that holds together.”  Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 
2010); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004).  
 
1 The entire text of the Complaint as filed is as follows: 
 
Case: 4:26-cv-00506-SEP     Doc. #:  4     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
Plaintiff here does not provide any factual information explaining who the parties are, 
what they are alleged to have done, or her reasons for filing the matter in the United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  Further, Plaintiff has filed identical 
complaints against Defendants Julia Poley, Michael Faleck, Sulay Grant, and Dawn Hill-Kearse 
in numerous federal courts around the country, including in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, 
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, North 
Dakota, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.2  
The cases were all filed between April 1st and 7th, 2026.  The complaints are all dated March 17, 
2026.  Plaintiff’s mailing address on her return envelope for her Complaint is Tupelo, 
Mississippi, but the Complaint was mailed from New York, NY.  See Doc. [1] at 2.  
 An action is “malicious” in the context of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where it is “intended to 
harass.”  Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109 (7th Cir. 2003).  Dismissal based on 
maliciousness is appropriate where the complaint is “part of a longstanding pattern of abusive 
and repetitious lawsuits.”  Horsey v. Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212-13 (8th Cir. 1984); see also 
Carter v. Schafer, 273 Fed. Appx. 581 (8th Cir. 2008) (dismissal for maliciousness upheld where 
plaintiff “filed at least thirty separate complaints” in a five-year period, with a number raising 
“issues that are the same as or are substantially similar to those in the instant case, against the 
same defendants”).  Where a plaintiff files identical vacuous allegations against the same 
defendants in numerous courts within a matter of days, that plaintiff plainly intends to harass 
either those defendants or the Court or both.  The Court therefore also finds this action malicious 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
3 
 Accordingly, 
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court 
Without Prepaying Fees and Costs, Doc. [2], is DENIED.  
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED as malicious 
and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).   
  
 
2 See PACER, the federal courts’ electronic records system.  
3 Because the Court finds the Complaint malicious, it will not permit Plaintiff to proceed in forma 
pauperis.  See Gentile v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections and Human Resources, 986 F.2d 214, 217 (8th 
Cir. 1993).  
 
 
Case: 4:26-cv-00506-SEP     Doc. #:  4     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
Dated this 29th day of May, 2026. 
   
 _______________________________________ 
 SARAH E. PITLYK 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case: 4:26-cv-00506-SEP     Doc. #:  4     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight