Opinion
Civil Action No. 09 1365.
July 23, 2009
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 7, 2009, the plaintiff submitted this brief pro se complaint along with 98 others, each accompanied by a separate application to proceed in forma pauperis. The 98 complaints, which are attached to this memorandum opinion as an appendix, will be consolidated with the complaint in this case for purposes of disposition and dismissed as frivolous.
In addition, the plaintiff submitted another three pro se complaints that same day, which will be disposed of independently.
Like numerous complaints previously filed by this plaintiff, see, e.g., Mem. Op. Dixon v. 60-George Ct., Hampton, Virginia, Civil Action 08-2151 (UNA) (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008) (generally describing 22 complaints consolidated therein); Order, Dixon v. Cattle Ranch, Civil Action 09-969 (UNA) (D.D.C. May 26, 2009) (generally describing 19 complaints consolidated therein), 95 of the 99 complaints, purport to sue various public and private properties or entities, such as the "United States Satellite Headquarters in Tokyo, Japan," "Rolls Royce" in France, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Sibley Hospital, Lenoir County (N.C.) Library, and "Amtrak Trains," either "for all my earnings" or for no stated reason. Just four of the 99 complaints deviate from this general theme. Those four seek $999 quadrillion dollars in compensatory damages and an equal amount in punitive damages from each of the following defendants: (1) the University of North Carolina for allegedly building on plaintiff's land; (2) James N. Peters for "having his name on my building without my permission;" (3) the Kinston, North Carolina "Records of Deed Office" because they "said I needed the date and the year before I could purchase my deeds;" and (4) the Kinston Housing Authority for "taking control and renting and collecting from my Queen Court Apartments." It is evident from the both the nature of the allegations and the number of complaints filed by this pro se plaintiff, who lists his address as "Sixteen Hundred Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.," that they are based on fantastic or delusional scenarios, which subjects them to immediate dismissal. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989).
A separate order of dismissal accompanies this memorandum opinion. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Ernest L. Dixon, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) United States Satellite Headquarters, ) ) Defendant. )