Opinion
Case No. CV414-051
03-31-2014
CARROL A. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY L. ARNOLD; MARK HENDRLX; SHERRY LONG, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Evidently tied up in state court litigation, plaintiff Carrol A. Jackson, proceeding pro se, has used a form Complaint to sue here the judge, prosecuting attorney, and clerk of court in a state traffic case. Doc. 1. He also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Doc. 2. Finding him indigent, the Court GRANTS his IFP motion. Doc. 2. But the right to proceed IFP is a privilege authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and that statute authorizes this Court to dismiss a case sua sponte if, inter alia, it is frivolous or malicious, or otherwise fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That authority "is designed largely to discourage the riling of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit and because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Jackson's complaint is subject to immediate dismissal since it is patently frivolous. He invokes no legal theory or statute, and relies on a facially absurd "Affidavit" in which he declares himself a "living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, 'real' man'" who has formed a "contract" with the defendants. Doc. 1-3 at 1. He alleges that he sent them an "AFFIDAVIT & OFFICIAL CANCELLATION DISCHARGE NOTE-DRAFT, INTERROGATES AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE FOR PROOF OF CLAIM," and requested from them a "Proof of Claim" of the status of (apparently), the state court case. Since the defendants never responded, somehow Carroll wins $2,202.00 from them by "default." Id. at 2. Hence, he wants this Court to award him $2,202.00. Doc. 1 at 4. At best he advances babbling nonsense.
This case must be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 696 (2009) ("The sole exception to this rule [that a court must accept a complaint's allegations as true, no matter how skeptical the court may be] lies with allegations that are sufficiently fantastic to defy reality as we know it: claims about little green men, or the plaintiff's recent trip to Pluto, or experiences in time travel.").
_______________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
See also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , a federal court may dismiss a complaint whose factual contentions describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal judges are all too familiar"); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328 (a complaint is legally frivolous when it contains "claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. . . ."); Gallop v, Cheney, 642 F.3d 364, 366, 368-69 (2d Cir. 2011) (district court permitted to sua sponte dismiss complaint as factually frivolous where plaintiff, represented by counsel, filed complaint alleging that senior U.S. government officials caused the September 11, 2001 attacks); Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 F. App'x 231, 234 (11th Cir. 2008) (complaint may be dismissed even before service of process where its legal theories are indisputably meritless).