Annamarie (?) v. Electors for the State of Delaware

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 2 COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/9/2012. (nms)

I
t

i

}

f

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

I
i

ANNAMARIE (?)last name uncertain
and 649 others,

!
i

'

Plaintiff,

v.

f

I

Civ. No. 12-1197-RGA

ELECTORS FOR THE STATE OF
DELAWARE,

l
!

l

i

I
~-

.,
'

I

~

'

Defendant.

I
t

AnnaMarie Riethmiller, Bradenton, Florida, Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1,

October
2012
Wilmington, Delaware

'
I
!:
f
!

\-

I
t

r
'

ANDREWS, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff Annamarie (?) last name uncertain appears pro se. A search of Public

I
!

t

Access to Court Electronic Records ("PACER") indicates that her last name is

f

Riethmiller and that she frequently files frivolous lawsuits. The instant case is no

J

t

exception.

t

f

On September 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma

f

I

Pauperis (D.I. 1) and a "Motion for Declaratory Orders and an Interdict" (D.I. 2),

t
!
t

construed by the Court as a Complaint. Based on Plaintiffs financial information, the
Court finds that she may proceed without payment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §

J

This Court must dismiss certain in forma pauperis actions that are frivolous,
malicious, or fail to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court must accept
all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to
a prose plaintiff. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008).

v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court may
dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory"
or a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual scenario. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
327-28. Because Plaintiff proceeds prose, the pleading is liberally construed and the
Complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(internal quotation marks omitted).

i
I

•

1915(a).

An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke

(

I

I

Plaintiff filed identical complaints in Reithmiller v. Electors for the State, Civ. No.
12-548-TOR (E.D. Wash. 2012) and Riethmillerv. Electors for the State, Civ. No. 121739-CAS (E.D. Mo. 2012). Both were dismissed as frivolous. The instant Complaint
contains fifty-two pages of nonsensical and delusional allegations about a psychiatrist
who treated plaintiff's husband and President Obama's conspiracy with the psychiatrist
to deprive plaintiff of her constitutional rights. For example, Plaintiff states, "I no longer
have certainty as to my last name as a direct result of the Obama regime." After
review, the Court finds that the Complaint is frivolous under Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (allegations are frivolous if they are "fanciful," "delusional," or
"fantastic").
For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Amendment is futile. Plaintiff is advised that the
filing of further frivolous actions will result in the imposition of more serious sanctions
than dismissal.
An appropriate order will be entered.

2