
    Ronald J. MEADOWS, Plaintiff, v. Tracy Robinson WOODS, et al., Defendants.
    No. 94-2449.
    United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee.
    June 10, 1994.
    Ronald J. Meadows, pro se.
   ORDER OF DISMISSAL

McCALLA, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Ronald J. Meadows, an inmate at the Shelby County Division of Corrections’, (SCDC), Shelby County Correctional Center, (SCCC), has filed another series of complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against various- SCCC employees.

In this particular ease, plaintiff, who is housed in the SCDC’s Adult Offender Center, (AOC), sues counselors Allen, Gibson and Tracy Robinson Woods, AOC director Linda K. Miller, Shelby County Corrections Director Ronald D. Bishop, and Robert Christie. This complaint, as with plaintiff’s others, arises out of plaintiffs ongoing feud with counselors in AOC building 2. This particular complaint seems to concern the action of Woods and Gibson in assigning plaintiff to building 2, despite his protests that the counselors were biased against him, and their refusal to accede to his repeated demands to be transferred. The three and a half pages of allegations are not a complaint as contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but akin to a disconnected and garbled diary of several days of events at the AOC. Federal courts are not obliged to sort through a jumbled and disorganized presentation in an attempt to guess at the basis of the claims of a pro se plaintiff. The contentions are essentially duplicative of the ones considered and rejected in the five companion cases filed with this pleading. The court finds that this document, like those, alleges no deprivation of any substantive constitutional right, nor any cognizable injury therefrom. At most, the complaints allege that this plaintiff is feuding with AOC and SCCC employees, that he dislikes some of those employees, and that they dislike him. There is no right to friendly and harmonious relationships between a prisoner and his custodians. This complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact, and is therefore frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

As the complaint is frivolous, it is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

The final issue to be addressed is whether plaintiff should be allowed to appeal this decision in forma pauperis. Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith. As noted, the factual and legal issues in this case are duplicative of those previously rejected in plaintiff’s simultaneously filed cases. The same considerations that lead the court to dismiss those cases as frivolous and certify any appeal of them as not taken in good faith compel the same conclusion here.

It is therefore CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), that any appeal in this matter by plaintiff, proceeding informa pauperis, is not taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 
      
      . About two years ago, Meadows filed seven complaints, all of which were dismissed as frivolous under section 1915(d):
      
        Meadows v. Dyson, 92-2380-4 (W.D.Tenn.1992).
      
        Meadows v. McCoy, 92-2378-G (W.D.Tenn.1992).
      
        Meadows v. Verner, 92-2377-Tu (W.D.Tenn. 1992).
      
        Meadows v. Haynes, 92-2376-H (W.D.Tenn. 1992).
      
        Meadows v. Suggs, 92-2231-Tu (W.D.Tenn.1992).
      
        Meadows v. Bishop, 92-2189-4 (W.D.Tenn.1992).
      
        Meadows v. Thomas, 92-2187-G (W.D.Tenn. 1992).
      For a time thereafter, it appeared that Meadows had been released, the court having not heard from him. In March, however, he reopened his correspondence with this district. His first case, Meadows v. Bishop, et al., No. 94-2171-Ml/Bro, was dismissed as frivolous under Hudson v. Palmer. This series of complaints followed.
     