Delaney v. Rockefeller et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE and granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying as moot 4 Motion for Change of Venue. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/27/2011. (tm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 11-61521-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF
LARRY DELANEY
Plaintiff
vs.
DAVID ROCKEFELLER, et al.
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
THIS CASE is before me upon a sua sponte review of the record. On July 11, 2011,
Plaintiff filed a document that he has identified as a complaint against David Rockefeller, Jay
Rockefeller, President Barack O’bama [sic], Buck Preece, the United States of America, Wells
Fargo Bank, Chevron Oil, The UPS Store, Public Storage and Carsal Towing Company. For the
reasons explained below, the “complaint” is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a pleading to contain “a short and plain
statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are
construed more liberally than pleadings drafted by attorneys, “this leniency does not give the
court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party … or to rewrite an otherwise deficient
pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d
1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). If a court determines that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, that the complaint fails to state a cause of action or is a frivolous in forma pauperis
proceeding, the court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Tallahassee Mem’l Reg’l

Med. Ctr. V. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1435 (11th Cir. 1987); 28 U.S.C. § 1915. “For purposes of §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), an action is frivolous if it is ‘without arguable merit either in law or fact.”
Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346,
1349 (11th Cir. 2001)). Frivolous claims also “include claims ‘describing fantastic or delusional
scenarios.’” Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989)).
Plaintiff seeks 2.1 billion dollars in damages and “the seizure of persons for the Federal
charges of High Treason and Racketeering” for alleged discrimination, conspiracy and retaliation
in violation of his constitutional and civil rights. (Compl. 7, ECF No. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff
asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1982, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. On its face, the complaint does not state a viable cause of action.
Section 1982 provides that “[a]ll citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in
every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell,
hold, and convey real and personal property.” Plaintiff has not alleged any action by Defendants
that would interfere with any real property right. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim also fails to state a
cause of action. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show “(1) a violation of a
constitutional right, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under
color of state law.” Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005). “The traditional
definition of acting under color of state law requires that the defendant … have exercised power
possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with
the authority of state law.” U.S. v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783, 808 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff alleges that he was denied
access to the courts in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, yet fails to
allege facts to support his claims. Plaintiff figuratively alleges that he was “tied to the whipping

2

post by coded case law of the United States Supreme Court.” Figurative allegations, however,
are not sufficient to sustain an actionable § 1983 claim. (Compl. 3, ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s claim
that inmates “at the Rynning Unit of the Arizona prison system” laced his coffee “with an
excessive amount of Viagra” causing Plaintiff to suffer “painful erections lasting for hours” is
also insufficient because Plaintiff fails to allege that the Viagra conspiracy was only possible
because of Defendants’ official authority. (Id. at 2).
A claim for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 requires a
plaintiff to allege that: (1) defendants engaged in a conspiracy; (2) the conspiracy’s purpose was
to directly or indirectly deprive a protected person or class the equal protection, privileges or
immunities under the laws; (3) a conspirator committed an act to further the conspiracy; and (4)
as a result, the plaintiff suffered injury either to his person or property, or was deprived of a right
or privilege of a citizen of the United States. Jimenez v. Wellstar Health System, 596 F.3d 1304,
1312 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Johnson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 126 F.3d 1372, 1379 (11th Cir.
1997). Plaintiff makes only conclusory allegations that he “is currently being subjected to an
ongoing conspiracy of discrimination against him due to his mother Erica Jung being a
descendent of King Bismarck of Prussia.” (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1). Yet and still, he does not
assert any facts to support the alleged conspiracy. Plaintiff’s Title VII claim is equally fantastic
and delusional. Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to
discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). “A plaintiff may prove a
claim of intentional discrimination through direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or statistical
proof.” Rioux v. City of Atlanta, Ga., 520 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff fails to

3

offer even a scintilla of evidence of discrimination, let alone claim that he was Defendants’
employee.
The complaint barely articulates an intelligible sentence and certainly fails to assert a
colorable claim for relief. The 12-page document is a rambling collection of quotes, references
to historical landmarks, celebrities, movies, and obscure and apocalyptic bible references.
Throughout the body of the complaint, Plaintiff has underlined selected words, in no discernable
pattern, to reveal what he has identified to be a “coded message.” These “messages” are nothing
more than a random collection of words arranged together in incoherent paragraphs.
example:
Justice Kennedy, Chief Justice Scalia and Judge Sandra Day O’Connor has the
Petitioner tied to the whipping-post in the Supreme Court decision of Teague v.
Lane, 489 U.S. 288, which is a British Intelligence link to model Cheryl Tiegs,
actress Cheryl Ladd, and the marriage between singer Cher and Greg Allman of
the Allman Brothers Band, who sing “Whipping Post.”
Jack is the pot for three cherries showing, which ties into John Ritter and Don
Knotts in the show “Three’s Company,” starring Suzanne Somers and Joyce
DeWitt, a link to Opie of Mayberry in the show “Andy Griffith,” leading to the
Knottsberry Farm in California.
Miranda Cosgrove of “I.Carly” ties into the characters of Romer Treece and
Adam Coffin in the novel “The Deep” by Peter Benchley, as in the Fruit of the
Poisonous Tree doctrine handed down by Justice Pitney for Woodrow Wilson in
Silverthorne Lumber v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385, leading to the song by the Pointer
Sisters called “Fire,” which mentions Romeo & Juliette.
Bring together everything underlined and the message from British Intelligence
reads: “Kennedy is the Scales of Justice on Judgment Day. League in the Book of
Daniel is Sun Lane in San Jose that has the lad tied to the whipping-post. Pope
John Paul’s knots are three’s company for some of Delaney’s cherry pie at the
farm. Miranda Warning will b in the grove of Rome’s trees filled with coffins in
the deep for the bench. Fruit of the poisonous tree in the Garden of Eden will be
the Pit in the Book of Psalms. Wood will be the silver lumber for the fire by
Rome’s jewels of the Scarlet Woman in Revelations.”
(Compl. 8, ECF No. 1).

4

For

Notwithstanding the pleading leniency afforded to pro se plaintiff’s, it is not Court’s
responsibility to play the role of detective in an attempt to de-code hidden claims for relief.
Plaintiff’s claims are meritless, factually and legally frivolous, and are an unreasonable
consumption of the Court’s time and resources. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained in this Order, Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is
DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.
3), is GRANTED; however, service shall not issue. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers at Miami, Florida this 27th day of July 2011.

Copies furnished to:
William C. Turnoff, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
Larry Delaney
300 E. Oakland Park Blvd. # 171
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334

5