Lietzke v. County of Montgomery, AL et al

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
BILL LIETZKE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY,
ALABAMA; REESE McKINNEY, probate
judge; and D.T. MARSHALL, Sheriff;
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00724-AKB
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
BY SCREENING JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Bill Lietzke, a citizen of Montgomery, Alabama, filed a civil Complaint
against various Alabama Defendants who allegedly kidnapped him in Alabama and took him to
an Alabama psychiatric hospital several times between 1999 and 2002. He desires to proceed in
forma pauperis.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)1 requires the Court to screen all non-prisoner
pauper complaints to determine whether they have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted
before being served on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court must dismiss any claims that
are frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
“It is malicious per se for a pauper to file successive In Forma Pauperis suits that duplicate
claims made in other pending or previous lawsuits.” Brinson v. McKeeman, 992 F. Supp. 897, 912
(D. Tex. 1997); see Scott v. Weinberg, 2007 WL 963990, at *12 (D. Wash. 2007) (malicious suits
1 Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, et seq.
Case 1:25-cv-00724-AKB Document 4 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 4

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 2
include those that are “plainly abusive of the judicial process or merely repeat[] pending or
previously litigated claims”); Thomas v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 2005 WL 1074333, at *5 (D.
Va. 2005) (repetitive lawsuit was frivolous and malicious where plaintiff was told in his previous
suit that he had not stated a claim).
The following problems prevent Plaintiff from proceeding. First, a federal court must
satisfy itself that it has authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Federal due
process requires that a nonresident defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state such
that the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). To avoid dismissal,
Plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts. Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416,
1420 (9th Cir. 1987).
Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant exists if (1) the nonresident defendant
has some connection with the forum state; (2) the claim arises out of the defendant’s forum-related
activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. See Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems
Technology Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977). Plaintiff is a citizen of Alabama,
the acts complained of occurred in Alabama, and the Defendants work and reside in Alabama or
are Alabama government entities. No facts support a conclusion that the Court has personal
jurisdiction over the Alabama defendants.
Second, venue must also be proper. Legal actions may be brought only in
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents
of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of
the action is situated; or
Case 1:25-cv-00724-AKB Document 4 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 4

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 3
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided
in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the
court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
No facts support a conclusion that venue in Idaho is appropriate for the same reasons that
personal jurisdiction does not lie.
Third, Plaintiff’s claims duplicate claims made in other cases that have been dismissed with
prejudice. To date, Plaintiff has filed over 228 cases in the federal court system. A search of federal
dockets reveals complaints filed in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. See Lietzke v. Cnty. of Montgomery, et
al., 2:21-cv-00209-RAH-JTA (M.D. Ala. 2007) (dismissed with prejudice and recognizing Lietzke
as a vexatious litigant on the same claims as in this case); Lietzke v. Cnty. of Montgomery, et al.,
3:19-cv-00141-TMB (D. Alaska 2019) (dismissed with prejudice as frivolous on the same claims
as in this case).
A pro se litigant bringing a civil rights suit must have an opportunity to amend the
complaint to overcome deficiencies unless it is clear that they cannot be overcome by amendment.
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). A pro se pleading may be dismissed without
notice of the deficiencies and an opportunity to amend if a complaint “cannot be saved” by
amendment. Id. at 1129.
Based on the facts alleged in the Complaint, it does not appear that Plaintiff can come
forward with any facts showing that this Court has personal jurisdiction over this case or that venue
in Idaho is proper. Further, Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and subject to dismissal with prejudice
because they duplicate other cases adjudicated to a conclusion and because they assert claims that
Case 1:25-cv-00724-AKB Document 4 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 4

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4
are two decades too late. See Adams v. California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688, 692
(9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted) (finding dismissal of duplicative action with prejudice did not
constitute an abuse of discretion)1; Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1229–30 (9th Cir. 1984)2
(a case filed outside the statute of limitations period is legally frivolous).
Because amendment would be futile and transferring this case to the proper Alabama
federal district court where Plaintiff has been deemed a vexatious litigant would not be judicially
efficient, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s in Forma Pauperis Application (Dkt. 1) is DENIED as MOOT.
2. The Complaint (Dkt. 2) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. The Court concludes from the content and timing of the Complaint that any appeal would
be taken in bad faith, because there are no conceivable non-frivolous arguments that could
save Plaintiff’s case from dismissal with prejudice.
DATED: January 22, 2026
_________________________
Amanda K. Brailsford
U.S. District Court Judge
1 Adams was overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).
2 Franklin was abrogated on other grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 331 (1989)
(holding that a complaint filed in forma pauperis is not automatically frivolous within the meaning
of § 1915(d) simply because it fails to state a claim).
Case 1:25-cv-00724-AKB Document 4 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 4