MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUA SPONTE ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Dkt. No. 6)

MICHAEL A. PONSOR, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Thomas P. Budnick, has been enjoined from filing suits in the District Court of Massachusetts without first filing a written petition seeking leave to do so since March 23, 2005. Budnick v. Blair, et al., No. 05-30058 (D. Mass. Mar. 23, 2005) (Standing Order, Dkt. No. 7). In this case, Plaintiff filed suit in Hampden County Superior Court, and on January 2, 2014, Municipal Defendants1 removed the action to this court. Now before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons stated below, the court will allow this motion.

II. FACTS

The allegations in Plaintiff's complaint largely echo the claims in a previously-filed suit that this court dismissed on October 30, 2013. In re: Thomas Budnick, Nos. 13-93022 & 13-93023 (D. Mass. Oct. 30, 2013) (Mem. & Order 2-5, Dkt. No. 6). The court will not repeat them in detail here. Generally, and to the extent they can be comprehended, these allegations include alleged harassment by the Harwich and Ludlow Police Departments during which they blasted horns and shined spotlights into Plaintiff's second floor bedroom at all hours of the night and called him "space nut." The complaint also offers a mining claim for the White House artifacts aboard the H.M.S. Fantome, which sunk off of Nova Scotia during the War of 1812.

In his Supplemental Pleadings (Notice of Removal 20, Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 2), Plaintiff has brought new allegations against Municipal Defendants Towns of Ludlow and Westwood, the Ludlow and Westwood Police Departments, Ludlow Police Officer Stephen Sambor, Ludlow Police Chief Pablo P. Madera, and Ludlow Police Officer John Doe. Plaintiff claims that after his eviction on October 17, 2013, from 19 Harding Avenue in Ludlow, his home of sixty-six years, he continued to stop by to feed his wild cats. In late October, he noticed that the cellar window to his former home was closed, and he apparently became concerned that some of his cats were stuck in the basement.

On November 23, 2013, he swung by the house again to check on the cats and walked up to the kitchen window to check the cellar window just below it. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Defendants McEachern and Menard2 were in the kitchen. According to Plaintiff, when he discovered the house was occupied, he left. The individual Defendants called the Ludlow police, who arrested Plaintiff for violating an abuse prevention order granted pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209A. Plaintiff spent the following three days in jail. He alleges that Defendant Ludlow Police Department arrested him for "spite and retation/revenge [sic]." (Id. ¶ 42 at 22, Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 2.) Plaintiff's current thirteen-count civil action was filed on December 17, 2013, alleging claims for, among other things, obstruction of justice pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment (Counts III & X), civil and criminal RICO conspiracy (Counts VI & XIII), and transfers of spoils of war pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 2201 (Count VII). On January 2, 2014, Municipal Defendants removed the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (granting district courts "original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution [and] laws"). On January 16, 2014, Municipal Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 6), which Plaintiff opposes.

III. DISCUSSION

Municipal Defendants now move for dismissal of all Plaintiff's claims on the bases of res judicata and failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In addition, and as an independent basis for dismissal, they urge the court to use its inherent power to dismiss frivolous or malicious actions. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989). A "sua sponte" dismissal, though dispensed sparingly, can be appropriate if the parties have been provided notice and an opportunity to respond. Martinez-Rivera v. Sanchez Ramos, 498 F.3d 3, 7 (1st Cir. 2007). Where "it is crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would be futile," a sua sponte dismissal may be proper even without prior notice to the plaintiff. Chute v. Walker, 281 F.3d 314, 319 (1st Cir. 2002) (internal quotations omitted).

This is a case where sua sponte dismissal, even if it were considered to be without notice, is entirely appropriate.3 It is true that Plaintiff did not defy the court's prohibition by filing his complaint here; rather, as noted, his case was removed from state court by Defendants. Nevertheless, this complaint contains all the hallmarks of the copious other complaints this court has forbidden him to file without leave.4 Budnick, No. 05-30058 (D. Mass. Mar. 23, 2005) (Standing Order, Dkt. No. 7).5 Like his previous complaints, this one is prolix, mostly undecipherable, and "replete with bald allegations and legal conclusions, without underlying factual support or necessary chronology to put any of the claims in context." In re: Thomas Budnick, No. 13-93022 (Mem. & Order 6, Dkt. No. 6). Even with the new allegations regarding his eviction at the end of 2013 and subsequent arrest for violating a restraining order, Plaintiff's complaint does not allege specific actions taken by Defendants McEachern or Menard, but rather simply rehashes the wild assertions brought in previous lawsuits dismissed by this court. See In Re: Thomas Budnick, No. 10-30026 (sealed). As the court has found previously, "it would be immensely unfair to the named defendants to permit these lawsuits to proceed." In re: Thomas Budnick, No. 13-93022 (Mem. & Order 7, Dkt. No. 6). Based on this, the court will dismiss Plaintiff's lawsuit as to all Defendants. Although Defendants' more formal arguments asserting the doctrine of res judicata and failure to state a claim have some force, it is not necessary to address them.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Municipal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby ALLOWED (Dkt. No. 6). Moreover, the court, exercising its inherent power to dismiss frivolous actions, hereby sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff's complaint as to all Defendants. The case may now be closed.

It is So Ordered.