v. Hopson, 3:12-cv-00832

Hopson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint in the Western District of Kentucky.
Court reviews such complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).
§ 1915(e)(2) authorizes dismissal of frivolous, malicious, or meritless claims or those immune from relief; courts may sua sponte dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The complaint named all Kentucky federal judges among the Defendants, but recusal was deemed unwarranted.
Hopson has filed numerous actions; in 3:12CV-770-H the court barred Hopson from proceeding in forma pauperis against named defendants on the same subject matter.
The court found the instant complaint frivolous, devoid of merit, and not subject to discussion, and dismissed the action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1915(e) dismissal is proper	Hopson argues the claims have merit.	Court should dismiss as frivolous or meritless.	Dismissal appropriate
Whether recusal was required for all Kentucky federal judges	Seeks disqualification of the undersigned and others.	No basis for recusal; no factual ties to the judge.	Recusal not warranted
Whether the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction	Alleges conspiracies and civil rights violations.	Allegations are implausible and insubstantial.	Court may dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; frivolous

McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997) (authority to screen prisoners' complaints under § 1915(e))
Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 1999) (sua sponte dismissal standards under Rule 12(b)(1))
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974) (precludes frivolous or insubstantial grounds for jurisdiction)
Easley v. Univ. of Mich. Bd. of Regents, 853 F.2d 1351 (6th Cir. 1988) (judge not required to recuse absent occasion)
In Re Union Leader Corp., 292 F.2d 381 (1st Cir. 1961) (example on recusal/judicial impartiality considerations)