Opinion
Civil Action 23-1417
09-11-2023
PAUL BRYAN BREWER, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN, JR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Cathy Bissoon, United States District Judge
Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and the Complaint is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Atamian v. Burns, 2007 WL 1512020, *1-2 (3d Cir. May 24, 2007) (“the screening procedures set forth in [Section] 1915(e) apply to [IFP] complaints filed by prisoners and non-prisoners alike”) (citations omitted). Among other things, the statute requires the Court to dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks relief against an immune defendant. Burrell v. Loungo, 750 Fed.Appx. 149, 154 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2018) (citing Section 1915(e)(2)).
Plaintiff named as Defendants the President, former President Barack Obama, the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) and Patsy “Christ like” Campana, II, whose occupation is allegedly a “Sicilian Mafia Godfather.” Compl. (Doc. 4) at 2-3. Plaintiff lodges a smattering of grievances by first complaining that he was “tortured” in various states because Defendants “Robed [sic] me of the chance to be president of the United states [sic] and embezzled 900 trillion dollars from me and the United States Treasury.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff goes on to allege a CIA agent by the name of “Nicky” directed Hillman Cancer staff to withhold cancer treatment from Plaintiff and accused Defendants of violating “all of the Bill of rights [sic].” Id. at 3, 5. If Plaintiff succeeds in his claims, he requests this Court grant him “all of the United states [sic] Treasury.” Id. at 5.
Moreover, Plaintiff's subsequent letters to this Court underscore the insufficiency of his pleading as the letters provide irrelevant information and merely list events with which he is dissatisfied. Plaintiff rambles on, providing so-called codes to launch atomic bombs, (Doc. 7) at 1, asserting that he “stoped [sic] the Syrian People and the IRAQis People [sic] from Bombing [sic] the United States” because he is “clairvoyant,” id., and sharing how his ex-wife and another individual accused him of sexually abusing children, (Doc. 6) at 1.
Clearly Plaintiff's incredible allegations fail to support claims upon which relief may be granted, generally, and with respect to the named Defendants. President Biden and former President Obama are immune from suits for damages based on conduct undertaken through their official duties. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988). Further, claims against the United States government are shielded by sovereign immunity and may proceed only upon its consent. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). Plaintiff failed to identify such consent, and the Court is unaware of any that may apply under these circumstances.
Plaintiff's Complaint simply provides “bare averment[s] that he wants relief and [believes he] is entitled to it.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 n.3 (2007) (citation to quoted source omitted). That is not enough. The Court has no reason to believe that the pleadings may be cured by amendment. Thus, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
IT IS SO ORDERED.