Warrence v. No Named Defendant

Filing 16

ORDER Of Dismissal. The Complaint (ECF No. 13 ) and the action are dismissed asfrivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal isdenied. Ay pending motions are denied as moot. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/20/2014. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-00898-BNB
NIKOS WARRENCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, US PRESIDENT,
US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AS AN ENTITY AND ALL INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS
DIRECTED POLICY AND GREEN-LIGHTING NAZI BOOK-BURNING, FELONY
INTIMIDATION WITH THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE AND DEATH, INFINITE
FASCIST ACTIONS ON THE PART OF ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL (ERIC
HOLDER LISTED SEPARATELY IN ATTACHED),
US SUPREME COURT AS AN ENTITY (MEMBERS FOLLOWS, ALL SENT VIA USPS
NOTIFICATION,
JOHN G. ROBERTS,
SONIA SOTMAYOR,
STEPHEN J. BREYER,
SAMUEL A. ALITO,
ELENA KAGAN,
CLARENCE THOMAS,
ANTONIN SCOLIA,
ANTHONY KENNEDY,
RUTH BADER GINSBURG,
CHIEF TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE MARY BRISCOE, and
81 ADDITIONAL NAZI BOOK-BURNING FELONS,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Nikos Warrence, currently resides in Leadville, Colorado. Mr. Warrence
initiated this action by filing, pro se, a document entitled “Federal Injunction Request”
(ECF No. 1). On April 2, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland reviewed the filing
and determined that it was deficient. Judge Boland instructed Mr. Warrence to submit a

Motion and Affidavit to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on the court-approved
form or pay the $400.00 filing fee within thirty days. Judge Boland also informed Mr.
Warrence that he needed to file a complaint on the proper-court approved form that
complied with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and provided a short and plain statement of his claims showing that he is
entitled to relief. (See ECF No. 3). After submitting two documents that did not comply
with the April 2 Order, Judge Boland granted Mr. Warrence an additional thirty days to
file his documents on the court-approved forms. (See ECF No. 12). He was warned
that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of this action without
further notice. (Id.).
On June 11, 2014, Mr. Warrence filed a Complaint on the proper form entitled
“Request for Anti-Justice System Corruption and Thin-Blue-Line Felony Protectionism
Investigation and Prosecution in the United States State of Colorado in the Spirit of Dr.
Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter.” (ECF No. 13). On June 12, 2014, he filed an Application to
Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 14), which was
granted by Judge Boland on June 17, 2014.
The Court must construe Mr. Warrence’s Complaint liberally because he is not
represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). If the Complaint reasonably can be
read “to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, [the Court] should do so
despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal
theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading
requirements.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. However, the Court does not act as an
2

advocate for a pro se litigant. See id. For the reasons stated below, the Complaint and
the action will be dismissed as frivolous.
The Court has reviewed the Complaint and finds that it fails to comply with the
pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Mr.
Warrence simply copied and pasted his original document into the court-approved
complaint form. Despite specific instructions provided by Judge Boland, the Complaint
continues to fail to set forth a short and plain statement of (1) the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction; (2) the claims showing Mr. Warrence is entitled to relief; and (3) the relief he
seeks in this action. The Complaint is largely unintelligible; it is a verbose, disorganized,
and confusing diatribe. In short, the Complaint makes no sense. It is not clear what
specific claims Mr. Warrence is asserting, the facts that support each asserted claim,
the Defendant or Defendants against which each claim is asserted, and what each
Defendant did that allegedly violated his rights. For example, Mr. Warrence alleges that
“it is absurd, impossible, absolutely counter-productive, and akin to at least legal if not
literal suicide to list the crimes of each individual defendant until a complete re-creation
of the thousands of pages these Nazi Book-Burning felons have proudly destroyed.”
(ECF No. 13 at 6).
Subsection (e)(2)(B) of § 1915 requires a court to dismiss sua sponte an action
at any time if the action is frivolous, malicious, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. Mr. Warrence’s attempt to pursue criminal
charges against 92 public officials in this action is frivolous. A claim is frivolous if it
“lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989). A legally frivolous claim rests on “an indisputably meritless legal theory,” such
3

as a claim that a non-existent legal interest has been infringed. Id. at 327. As
explained in the April 2 order to cure, Mr. Warrence lacks standing to prosecute a
criminal action under 18 U.S.C. § 242. See e.g., Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st
Cir.1989) (per curiam); Connecticut Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co., 457 F.2d
81, 86-87 (2d Cir.1972) ("It is a truism, and has been for many decades, that in our
federal system crimes are always prosecuted by the Federal Government, not as has
sometimes been done in Anglo-American jurisdictions by private complaints."); Winslow
v. Romer, 759 F. Supp. 670, 673 (D. Colo.1991) ("Private citizens generally have no
standing to institute federal criminal proceedings."). Accordingly, the Court finds that
Mr. Warrence’s claims are legally frivolous because they are based on an “indisputably
meritless legal theory.” See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.
In addition, a claim is factually frivolous if it depicts “fantastic or delusional
scenarios,” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328, or where “the facts alleged rise to the level of the
irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). The
Court finds that Mr. Warrence’s claims rest on “fantastic or delusional scenarios” which
“rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 32728; Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Thus, the claims are baseless and Mr. Warrence is not
entitled to relief in this action. The Complaint and the action will be dismissed as
frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status
will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438
(1962). If Mr. Warrence files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $505.00
4

appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App.
P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 13) and the action are dismissed as
frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that any pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 20th day of

June , 2014.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

5