I thought you all might enjoy a teeny sampling of the kind of frivolous nonsense our federal trial judges are required to wade through every day. The ability to deal with all of this stuff filed by people without lawyers on a daily basis without losing your cool is what lawyers call "judical temperment."
I guess this is the price we pay as Americans to keep our courts open to everyone. But it also shows that there's an awful lot of crackpots and untreated mental illness in our society. (Citations to legal authorities have been omitted to keep things short.)Price v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. , Case: 1:17-cv-00704 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 2017):
Price v. Community Connections, Case: 1:17-cv-00719 (D.D.C. 4/11/17):This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and her pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.
The Court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, such that they can prepare a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies.
Given the rambling and fanciful nature of the plaintiff's factual allegations, the Court cannot identify a basis for its jurisdiction, a viable legal claim, or a reason to award punitive damages of $200 trillion. The complaint fails to meet the standard set forth in Rule 8(a) and, therefore, it will be dismissed without prejudice.
Hirsch v. Pence, Case: 1:17-cv-00723 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 2017):This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and her pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.
The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claims being asserted such that they can prepare a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies.
The complaint, as drafted, fails to meet the standard set forth in Rule 8(a). Plaintiff does not set forth a basis for this Court's jurisdiction, and she does not appear to demand any particular form of relief, other than a request that the defendant stop "exploiting" her. The Court does not identify a viable legal claim and, accordingly, it will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice.
Miller v. FBI, Case: 1:17-cv-00724 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 2017):This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.
The complaint refers to the incident during which Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, pursuant to Senate Rule 19 Section 2, was directed to discontinue reading a letter written by the late Coretta Scott King regarding the qualifications of then-Senator Jeff Sessions. See Compl. at 4. Plaintiff brings this action against the Vice President in his capacity as President of the United States Senate and Senator Mitch McConnell in his capacity as Senate Majority Leader. See id. at 1. He alleges that the defendants violated Senator Warren's First Amendment rights, see id. at 4, and demands "that Senate Rule 19 Section 2 be struck down . . . on the ground[] that it is unconstitutional . . . on its face." Id. at 5.
"So-called 'Article III standing' has three requirements: (1) the plaintiff has suffered 'an injury in fact,' (2) that injury bears a causal connection to the defendant's challenged conduct, and (3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the plaintiff with redress from that injury." "Article III of the United States Constitution limits the judicial power to deciding 'Cases and Controversies.'" A party has standing for purposes of Article III if his claims "spring from an 'injury in fact' -- an invasion of a legally protected interest that is 'concrete and particularized,' actual or imminent' and 'fairly traceable' to the challenged act of the defendant, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in the federal court." Standing may be denied to a litigant who seeks to assert the rights of a third party. In the instant action, plaintiff lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of Senator Warren. Therefore, the complaint must be dismissed.
Lewis v. United States, Case: 1:17-cv-00720 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 2017):The plaintiff, who currently is detained at St. Elizabeth's Hospital, purports to bring a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Federal Bureau of Investigation because it "fraudulently publicized a firearm case in [his] criminal record." Compl. at 1. He demands damages of $150 million and "a copy of his criminal history from age 18 years old." Id. Insofar as the plaintiff demands money damages from the federal government, the Court construes the claim as one that ordinarily would proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). Offenses such as misrepresentation, fraud and defamation are excluded from the FTCA's coverage, however, and the plaintiff's claim must be dismissed.
Defamation claims may proceed under the Due Process Clause, but only where other "more tangible interests such as employment" are at stake. Here, the plaintiff has not alleged that to be the case.
The Court will grant the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Rossman v. Wichlinski, Case: 1:17-cv-00716 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 2017):This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintiff's pro se complaint and his application to proceed in forma pauperis. Once again, the plaintiff claims to have won the lottery and been deprived of the prize money. According to the plaintiff, "[t]he [p]rincipal value of the December 11, 1999 jackpot pri[z]e is $48,000,000." Compl. ¶ 7. The claim has been raised before, and it is no more viable here. This "actually is a tort claim for the recovery of lottery winnings to which the plaintiff claims an entitlement. Absent a clear showing of this Court's subject matter jurisdiction," the claim must be dismissed.
The Court will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order is issued separately.
Gencarelli v. Democratic National Committee, Case: 1:17-cv-00721 D.D.C. Apr. 11, 2017):The Court must keep in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claims being asserted such that they can prepare a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies.
This plaintiff has filed two substantially similar complaints. The defendant named in each complaint is a law enforcement agent who allegedly "accosted" and "interrogated" him on December 21, 2016. See Compl. 26, 28-31. Plaintiff's legal claims of fraud and conversion, however, appear to have arisen from unrelated events. He alleges that he has lost personal, intellectual, and real property in a Ponzi scheme, see id. ¶¶ 53-128, for which he demands compensatory damages of $10 million, and unspecified injunctive and declaratory relief, id. ¶ 129.
For purposes of this Memorandum, the Court consolidates the two complaints. As drafted, the complaints fail to comply with Rule 8(a). There is no short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to the relief he demands. Nor are there any factual allegations connecting the named defendants to the property losses plaintiff claims to have sustained. The Court will dismiss plaintiffs complaints because they fail to "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,'" as against the named defendants.An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
Bestor v. Lieberman, Civil Action No. 03-1470 (RWR) (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2005):This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed. It appears that the plaintiff brings this action under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and charges defendants with conspiracy to usurp the government of the United States, see Am. Compl. at 1 (caption), among other criminal offenses, see id. at 3-6. However, none of the code provisions cited by plaintiff allows for a private right of action.
The complaint will be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
Fletcher v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., Case: 1:17-cv-00693 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2017):Plaintiff personal injury claimant brought suit against defendants, two senators, alleging that devices had been implanted in his brain to control his thoughts, in violation of the Eighth and Thirteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1985 and 1986, and 18 U.S.C.S. § 1961. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The claimant sought leave to amend the complaint.
The claimant alleged that he was drugged and kidnapped from his apartment, and that a system of neuroprosthetics was implanted in his skull and brain. The claimant further alleged that the neuroprosthetics allowed remote human operators the capability to induce image and audio sequences in the claimant's brain. However, the claimant's allegations of government manipulation of his brain and mind were essentially fictitious and frivolous. They were precisely the sort of claims that presented no federal question suitable for decision as the claimant's conspiracy theory was bizarre and unsupported by evidence. Any evidence that the claimant did submit was wholly unrelated to him personally and did not suggest that the government was using neuroprosthetics systems in the way that he claimed.
Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. The claimant's request to amend was denied as futile. The complaint was dismissed.
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Under the statute governing IFP proceedings, the Court is required to dismiss a case "at any time" if it determines that the action is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Plaintiff purports to sue the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for "Malpractice-Professional." Compl. at 1. She alleges verbatim:
Compl. at 2. Plaintiff seeks $50 billion in monetary relief.Early May 7, 1969, plaintiff went into labor and it was a beach birth with a C-Section. They gave plaintiff the wrong baby, at birth. They gave her a boy with hair on his head. Plaintiff final discover, after many years had pass-by, that she gave birth to five infant girls and not a boy. Plaintiff also discover that the infant boy turn into a grow man at night where he continue rape that mother and took her babies and sold their body parts.
Complaints premised on fantastic or delusional scenarios or supported wholly by allegations lacking "an arguable basis either in law or in fact" are subject to dismissal as frivolous. The instant complaint satisfies this standard; therefore, this case will be dismissed with prejudice.
