Grant v. Office of the Secretary of Defense et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION that the #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted as more fully set out in order. Signed by Judge Liles C Burke on 10/4/2019. (AHI)
2019 Oct-04 PM 04:04
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE, et al.,
Case No. 5:19-cv-01566-LCB
William Lee Grant, II, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, the Missile Defense Agency, and the State of Illinois.
Plaintiff also filed an Application for Leave to Proceed Without
Prepaying Fees and Costs. (Doc. 2). The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application.
However, for the reasons set out herein, the court DISMISSES this action WITH
PREJUDICE for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides, in relevant part:
(e)(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that
may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that—
(B) the action or appeal-(i) is frivolous or malicious; [or]
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; . .
In conducting its review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the court is mindful that
complaints by pro se litigants are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
drafted by attorneys and subject to liberal construction. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.
3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006). However, the court “may not serve as de facto
counsel for a party . . . or rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain
an action.” Ausar-El ex rel. Small, Jr. v. BAC (Bank of America) Home Loans
Servicing LP, 448 F. App’x 1, 2 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and citations
Plaintiff first alleges, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, that the Illinois
Governor’s Office retaliated against him for filing a civil rights complaint in 2012.
The last fact Plaintiff mentions in connection with those claims occurred in 2016.
Therefore, the statute of limitations bars his claims. See Lufkin v. McCallum, 956
F.2d 1104, 1106 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that the statute of limitations for 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claims in Alabama is two years). Moreover, a federal
court in Alabama is not the appropriate venue for Plaintiff’s claims regarding his
employment in the State of Illinois. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
In the remainder of his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Department of
Defense created him to predict future nuclear attacks, that former Vice President
Dick Cheney personally profited from United States military operations, and that
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, ordered the assassination of Princess Diana.
Those claims are frivolous because they describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios,
claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989).
The court further notes that Plaintiff “has been recognized as a frequent filer
of frivolous litigation in federal courts throughout the country and he has made the
same claims in many of his filings.” Grant v. Harris, No. CV 19-763-RGA, 2019
WL 2491680, at *2 (D. Del. June 14, 2019) (citing Grant v. United States Dept. of
the Treasury, 2018 WL 3748415, at *1 (E.D. Tex. June 25, 2018). Plaintiff’s
present Complaint appears to be the same document he has filed in other courts,
except that he crossed out the name of the court from the previous case heading, and
substituted this court’s name in handwritten text. That action is consistent with
Plaintiff’s practice in past cases. As the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Rhode Island described:
Plaintiff is a prolific pro se litigant who has filed identical copies
of this lawsuit in Federal Courts throughout the country. His Complaint
is typewritten but contains handwritten notations and substitutions
throughout. For example, Plaintiff handwrote “District of Rhode
Island” on his Complaint in the margin and crossed out the name of
another federal court where he previously filed this Complaint.
Moreover, in the body of his Complaint, he notes that the Federal
Courts in the Northern and Central Districts of Illinois; Southern
District of Illinois; Central District of California; District of Maryland;
Northern District of Georgia; Eastern District of New York; Western
District of Virginia; Eastern, Northern and Western Districts of Texas
and the Federal Circuit have found this lawsuit to be frivolous and have
dismissed it. . . . A review of his filings in the PACER document filing
system confirms that he has filed this lawsuit throughout the country.
Grant v. Harris, No. 19-00353-WES, 2019 WL 3937022, at *1 (D.R.I. Aug. 20,
2019). Therefore, even if Plaintiff’s claims were not frivolous, res judicata would
bar him from repeating his claims before this court.
Based on the foregoing, the court will DISMISS this action WITH
PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court will enter a separate
DONE and ORDERED this October 4, 2019.
LILES C. BURKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?