MANNING v. USA
Filing
6
REPORTED OPINION and ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissing the complaint. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. No costs. Signed by Judge Charles F. Lettow. (dls) Copy to parties.
0Rr0r[\|At
Itu tbt @nitr! Ststeg g,:*tJ
ot
fr[trul
(Filed: October 2, 2015)
@[aims
FTLED
ocT - 2 206
U.S. COURT OF
* * * +,r * * * *
+
* * * * * * *,fi
1.
**
r. :|
***
+
***
*'1.
FEDERAL CLAIMS
* {.
)
ROBERT LEE MANNING, JR', et aI.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
Purported claims ofpatent infringement and
taking of intellectual property; application to
proceed in forma pauperis; scope and
administration of 28 U'S.C $ 1915;
frivolous claims
)
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
,,
*****
*'t :N * * * :t *,1' * * {' * *'r * * * * *'* + *'t :l' * * :i
)
)
)
)
)
Robert Lee Manning, pro se, Los Angeles, CA'
BenjaminS.Richards'TrialAttomey,CommercialLitisationBranch,CivilDivision'
\t;#;"t' D C'' for defindant' With him on the brief
United States Department
"ri*t'iit,
wereBenjaminC.Mizer,frincrpalDeputyA'ssistantAftomeYGeneral'CivilDivision'andJohn
Director' Commercial Litigation Branch' Civil
Fargo, Director, and Gary L. ;"I;l;", distant
D'C'
Oiul.ion, United States Department of Justice, Washington'
OPINION AND ORDER
LETTOW, Judge.
damases of more than a trillion dollars
Plaintiff Robert Lee Manning, Jr', seeks monetzuy
fraud, and discrimination'
from the United Srates for i"tri"e;.?ri;i;intellectual iropertyl"
weather
in", h. i"venred an'intirstellar spaceship and
Compl. fl 33.r Mr. Manning
property'
upon or taken this intellectual
st#t
;;;tt;., unA tf,ut tt. Unit"d "ii."g", has infringedthat property, and discriminatedagainst him
fraudulently prevented him tiom capitatizing in
bu;"ess uJittg tttat pioperty. Compl . fln"'U:?Y]:]j: ,
as a black man from
"onau"tlng r'" rtu' appfiJd for ieave to proceed in forma pauperis" Pl 's
Mr. Manning appeaxsprorr, uiJ
The govemment opposes the
"oPtt"^"]i*'
Appl. to Proceed In Forma eoup"is,EcF iqo 2'
and dismiss the case as frivolous
court has ,nr i"rrrJfiv i" a"ny tn" uplti"ution
";;;
"ri5.rr*ii,"iii" $ 1915(eX2XB;6
;"f''th"tp in opp'n to Mot for Leave to Proceed In
under 28 U.S.C.
a
rMr. Manning also lists NOCH Technological Scientific Research Institute, Inc' as
..[a]n individual
under the court's rules,
plaintiff, but the court will ignore that inclusion because,
but 1a1 not represent a c-orPoration ' ' in any
who is not an attomey may rlpresent oneself ' ' '
Claims'
Ruit s3'i("lAl ofthe Rules ofthe Court ofFederal "
proceeding before *,i,
"ou.t.ii
Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 5. The govemment's opposition raises issues about the scope and
application of Section 1915.
STANDARDS FOR DECISION
Section 1915 of Title 28 enables federal courts to allow a person to commence an action
without prepayment ofcourt fees, so long as the person provides a swom affidavit establishing
his or her inability to pay:
Subject to subsection (b), any court ofthe United States may authorize
the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or
proceeding, civil or criminal' or appeal therein, without prepayment of
fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that
includesastatementofallassetssucy'rprlsonei,possesses|hattheperson
isunabletopaysuchfeesorgivesecwitytherefor.SuchaffidavitShall
state the naturi of the action, defense or appeal and affrant's beliefthat
the
person is entitled to redress.
1915 injects an element
28 U.S.C. g 1915(a)(1) (emphasis added).2 Paragraph (a)(1) of Section
the,word
of confusion into application of this statutory provision by altemating between
;per*n" and "prisoner" when referring t o in forma pauperls applicability ' ,See Schage.ne.v'
3
1915(e)'
inited States,iZ f.a. Ct. 661, 662 (1997). This ambiguity extends to Subsection
which authorizes federal courts to dismiss frivolous or malicious actions:
(eX1) ' . .
any frling fee, or any portion^thereof, that may have been
thatiJia. iir. court shalidismiss the case at any time ifthe court determines
(A) the allegation ofpoverly is untrue; or
(B) the action or aPPeal(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) f'ails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
iijXo,*itfttt-Aing
ftom such relief.
"
2By its terms, Subsection 1915(a) applies only to a "court of the United states Pursuant
for the
g 2503(d), the court of FiierJ claims is a "court of the united states"
to 2g u.s.'c.
prrp"t""fi""rio.tt9iS.
SeeMatthewsv'{JnitedStates'72Fed'CI 274'277(2006)'
sSectionlgl5distinguishesbetweenpersonsandprisonersthroughout.Someprovisions
persons' Subsection l9i5(b) creates a
apply only to prisoners, whereas others apply to all
fees from prisoners based
to assess
#;ii;1" fo, prisorrer filers, requiring ihi courtparagraph and collect does not,use_the- term
1915(b)(1)
on a formula incorporating pri.one.s' a-ccorrrrts.
.'oerson,,at all, but in.tead.eiers only to a "prisoner.'; In contrast, Paragraph 1915(e)(1) permits
,f;.o,,rt;;;;;*i."""t"r fo. "a"y persot';'and does not use the term "prisoner'"
28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e). Nonetheless, the scope of the statute becomes evident upon an examination
of the origin and chain of amendments made to the text over time.
A, lltho Is a " Person" within the Meaning of Section
I91 5?
The current version of Section 1915 is the product of several amendments made by
Congress as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.4 The prior statute, enacted in
1948, allowed for filing by "a person." Indeed, since 1892 the United States Code has provided
avenues for in forma paupens filings. See Ben. C. Duniway, The Poor Man in the Federal
Courts, 18 Stan. L. Rev. 1270 (1966). The 1892 statute applied to citizen-plaintiffs, providing
that "any citizen ofthe United States, entitled to commence any suit or action in any court ofthe
United States, may commence and prosecute to conclusion any such suit or action without being
required to pt.puy f."t or costs." Act of July 20, 1892, ch. 209, $1, 27 Stat.252.s Congress re*tote th" statute in 1948, expanding it to cover all persons, including defendants, and codifying
it at Section 1915 in Title 28: "Any court of the United States may authorize the commencement,
prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein,
without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that
ne is uniUte to payl, 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(a) (1995) (originally enacted as Act ofJune 25, 1948, ch.
646,62Stat.giq(1948Act")(emphasisadded). Thelg48Actthusappliedbroadlyto
persons. see McTeague y. sosnowski,617 F.2d 1016, 1019 (3d Cir. 1980) (applyingthe 1948
to a non-prisonei frling;; see a/so Duniway, supra, at 1286 (observing the unique problem of
frivolous prisoner filings under the statute).
ict
when congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, it did not re-write
v. Lacy'88
Section 1915 but instead amended it to add rules for prisoner filings. see Leonard
Act's
F.3d 181, 133-84 (2d Cir. 1996) (\lewman, J.) (providing a line-by-line listing of the 1995
the phrase "such prisoner.
revisions to the text of section 1915). The 1995 Act inserted
in the original
possesses" into Paragraph 1915(aXi) while also leaving intact the requirement
,,u p"rr-on-" file an
or her inability to pay. Id. ln the
"affidavit" regarding his
i9+8 e"t thut
in Lacy, the court evin inserted a notation of"sic" next to the phrase
Second Circuit's opinion
.,such prisoner" inihe court's quotation of Paragraph 1915(a)(1), signaling that the court thought
Id.;see also schagene' 37 Fed. cl. at652n2
that the reference to,,such prisoner" was *
"rro..
prisoner"
(commenting that there are actually two errors in Paragraph 1915(a)(1) because "such
in the statute). As
*u, arl
-d the word "and" should appear after the word "possesses"
".ro, have observed, "the purpose oithe [Prison Litigation Reform Act], as-reflected by
other courts
to affect filings by
its title, is to curtail inmate litigafion," implying that Congress did not intend
of
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was actually enacted in 1996 as Title.VIII
Pub. L' No 104-134'
the Omnibus Consolidaied Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996,
aThe Prison
110 Stat. 1321.
sln his article, Judge Duniway traced the history of informa pauperis stat$es in the
VII in England.
English-speaking nat'ions iack to u ,Ltut" adopted during the reign ofHenry
Hen' 7 , c' l2)'
See-Duniway, tipro, ut 1271 (citing Act 1494,
'
ll
non-prisoners. Floydv. UnitedStates Postal Sent.,105F.3d274,275 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing
H.R. Rep. No. 104-378, at 166, for the proposition that the act was intended "to discourage
frivolous and abusive prison lawsuits").
In light ofthis evolution of Section 1915, it would be improper to assume that by adding
the phrase "such prisoner" in Paragraph 1915(a)(1), Congress intended to repeal by implication
the century-old authorization for in forma pauperis filing by persons generally. See Powell v.
Hoover,956 F. Supp. 564,566 (M.D. Pa. 1997) ("The appearance ofthe phrase 'such prisoner,'
without more, cannot reasonably be interpreted as effecting such a sweeping change.").6
Accordingly, Section 1915 should be applied to prisoners and non-prisoners alike, and the phrase
"such prisoner" should be interpreted as "such person." Floyd,105F.3daI277;see also
Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, Tl3 F.3d 1267,1270 (lOth Cir. 2013); Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners,
[nc.,364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004); Haynes v. Scott, I l6 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir.
1997). The Federal Circuit has in effect endorsed this construction of Section 1915 in a nonprecedential decision. See Jackson v. United States,
Fed. Appx. _, _,2015WL2343625,at
*2 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2015) (affirming a Court of Federal Claims dismissal of a non-prisoner's
complaint for frivolousness under Subparagraph 1915(e)(2)(B)); see also Dziekonski v. United
States, 120 Fed. Cl. 806, 81 I (2015) (granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis vrder
Paragraph 1915(aX1)); Hayesv. United States,7l Fed. CI.366,368 (2006) (same).
_
B. llrhat Is a Frivolous Cqse?
Although Section 1915 removes the burden ofpaying filing fees in appropriate cases, it
imposes limitations affecting certain tlpes of claims. Of relevance here, a "court shall dismiss
the case at any time" if the action or appeal to be filed informa paupens "is frivolous or
malicious." 28 U.S.C. g 191 5(e)(2)(B)(i). In contrast to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, which requires the court to assume the truth of allegations in the complaint, Clause
1915(eX2XBXi) gives courts "the unusual power to pierce the veil ofthe complaint's factual
allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." -/ardy v.
obama,60l Fed.Appx.620,623 (1OrhCir.2015)(quotingNeitzkev. lltilliams,490u.s.319,
327(1959)):Brodzkiv.TribuneCo.,48lFed.Appx.705,706(3dCir.2012)(same)' A
"finding of fa"tual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level ofthe
*2 (quotl'ng Denton v'
inational or wholly incredible." Jacl
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?