govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_26-cv-00829-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
 EASTERN DIVISION 
 
ELIZABETH DUFFY, ) 
) 
Plaintiff, ) 
) 
v. )      Case No. 4:26-CV-829-ZMB 
  ) 
SHAHABUDDEEN A. ALLY, et al., ) 
) 
Defendants. ) 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 
This matter is before the Court on case review. Self -represented Plaintiff Elizabeth Duffy 
filed a single-page Complaint, Doc. 1, and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 2. 
Because the Complaint fails to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, and because Duffy’s action is 
both frivolous and malicious, the Court dismisses this claim with prejudice.  
The Complaint alleges only that “Defendants failed to show dignity in work ,” and Duffy 
“claims punitive damages” estimated at “over $50,000.” Doc. 1. Duffy does not establish or meaningfully 
attempt to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. This case is therefore subject to dismissal  on that 
ground alone. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3); see also Thigulla v. Jaddou , 94 F.4th 770, 773 (8th 
Cir. 2024) (noting that courts must consider defects in subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte).  
But dismissal with prejudice is required because the Complaint is both frivolous and 
malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (requiring courts to screen for these and other defects). 
Here, the Complaint is frivolous because “it lacks an[y] arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 
Stanko v. Patton, 228 F. App’x 623, 624 (8th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). The Complaint does 
not identify the nature of Duffy’s relationship with the Defendants, provide factual context for the 
alleged wrongdoing, or provide any other basic information. Further, Duffy’s prior litigation 
history demonstrates that she is acting maliciously. A review of publicly available records shows 
Case: 4:26-cv-00829-ZMB     Doc. #:  3     Filed: 06/12/26     Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
that Duffy has filed this same single -page complaint at least 17 times in federal district courts 
across the country.1 The absence of allegations, combined with Duffy’s repeated filing of the same 
complaint in multiple jurisdictions, demonstrates a pattern of vexatious litigation aimed at 
harassing Defendants rather than an attempt to vindicate a cognizable right. See Horsey v. Asher, 
741 F.2d 209, 213 (8th Cir. 1984) ( recognizing that a complaint is malicious if it is “plainly part 
of a longstanding pattern of abusive and repetitious lawsuits”). As such, the Court dismisses this 
case with prejudice.2 See Am. Inmate Paralegal Assoc. v. Cline, 859 F.2d 59, 61–62 (8th Cir. 1988) 
(“Rule 11 allows the district court to impose sanctions whenever a plaintiff has filed a frivolous 
lawsuit.”); see also James v. East Baton Rouge Parish , 2024 WL 5172201, at *1 (M.D. La. Dec. 
19, 2024) (“[T] he Fifth Circuit has determined that a dismissal  with prejudice is an appropriate 
remedy if the Court determines that a lawsuit is frivolous and/or malicious.” (citation omitted)).  
 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and 
as both frivolous and malicious.   
 So ordered this 12th day of June 2026. 
 
 
   
 ZACHARY M. BLUESTONE 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
1 See, e.g., Duffy v. Ally, No. 1:26-CV-2318-RTG (D. Colo. May 26, 2026); Duffy v. Ally, No. 8:26-CV-1545-MSS-
TGW (M.D. Fla. May 28, 2026); Duffy v. Ally, No. 5:26- CV-214-CAR (M.D. Ga. May 28, 2026); Duffy v. Ally, No. 
1:26-CV-96-JHM (W.D. Ken. May 27, 2026); Duffy v. Ally, No. 1:26-CV-12369-LTS (D. Mass. May 26, 2026); Duffy 
v. Ally, No. 8:26-CV-2084-PX (D. Md. May 26, 2026); Duffy v. Ally, No. 1:26-CV-488 (M.D.N.C. May 26, 2026); 
Duffy v. Ally, No. 3:26-CV-411-KDB-DCK (W.D. N.C. May 26, 2026); Duffy v. Ally, No. 8:26-CV-243-JFB-PRSE 
(D. Neb. May 28, 2026); Duffy v. Ally, No. 1:26-CV-423-LM-AJ (D.N.H. May 26, 2026); Duffy v. Ally, No. 1:26-CV-
1718-GBW (D.N.M. May 27, 2026); Duffy v. Ally, No. 3:26-CV-393-MMD-CSD (D. Nev. May 27, 2026); Duffy v. 
Ally, No. 1:26-CV-339-MSM-AEM (D.R.I. May 26, 2026); Duffy v. Ally, No. 2:26-CV-120-DCLC-CRW (E.D. Tenn. 
May 27, 2026); Duffy v. Ally, No. 2:26-CV-521-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. May 27, 2026); Duffy v. Ally, No. 2:26-CV-233-
SAB (E.D. Wash. May 27, 2026).      
 
2 Duffy’s vexatious conduct has gone on for long enough that a stiffer s anction certainly would be justified. While it 
will not take that action at this point, the Court specifically cautions Duffy that it has  the authority to —and intends 
to—impose harsher sanctions should her conduct continue. See Taylor v. Caplan, No. 4:24-cv-01303-MTS, 2025 WL 
26683, at *2 n.2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2025) (“Rule 11 directs the court to impose sanctions against a litigant who signs 
frivolous or abusive pleadings, and may be imposed on pro se litigants.” (citation omitted)).  
Case: 4:26-cv-00829-ZMB     Doc. #:  3     Filed: 06/12/26     Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight