Banks v. Disney et al
Filing
4
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT denying 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Frederick Banks. Closing Case. Motions terminated: 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Frederick Banks. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 11/30/2016. (tm) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 16-23288-Civ-COOKE
FREDERICK BANKS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DISNEY, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYING FEES and DISMISSING COMPLAINT
THIS MATTER is before me on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 3). I have reviewed Plaintiff’s Application, the
Complaint (ECF No. 1), and the relevant legal authority. For the reasons provided herein,
Plaintiff’s Motion is denied and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges various government agencies surveil individuals and animals, using
“synthetic telepathy” on them. He contends this kind of surveillance, and its use of wireless
signals, played a role in the killing of a former contestant on “The Voice,” the Pulse
nightclub shooting, and the alligator killing of a toddler at the Walt Disney Resort. Plaintiff
claims financial injury due the decline in his Walt Disney Company stock, and believes the
Central Intelligence Agency surveilled him for five years.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A court shall dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis “at any time if the court
determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious . . . [or] fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). A pleading that states a
claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction,” as well as “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(2). The facts pleaded in a complaint must state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Further, the “short and plain statement of the claim” in the complaint must be sufficient to
“give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957)).
“A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Bilal v.
Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Battle v. Central State Hosp., 898 F.2d 126,
129 (11th Cir. 1990)). “Section 1915 represents a balance between facilitating an indigent
person’s access to the courts and curbing the potentially vast number of suits by such
persons, who, unlike those who must pay in order to litigate their claims, have no economic
disincentives to filing frivolous or malicious suits once in forma pauperis status is granted.”
Herrick v. Collins, 914 F.2d 228, 229 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
327–28 (1989)). “To this end, the statute accords judges . . . the unusual power to pierce the
veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless. . . . [such as] claims describing fantastic or delusional
scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
327. “The frivolousness determination is a discretionary one.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992). Under this standard as well, dismissal is clearly warranted.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) – (2). Although the
Complaint sets forth several statements, they do not collectively establish, or put the
Defendants on notice, of any viable causes of action Plaintiff intends to pursue. See Anderson
v. Dist. Bd. Of Trustees of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that
plaintiff’s complaint makes it “virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are
intended to support which claim(s) for relief”). In fact, only a handful of the named
Defendants are listed in the Complaint itself. Plaintiff’s Complaint is full of incoherent
ramblings that fail to plead a discernable cause of action. Accordingly, I find that Plaintiff’s
Complaint is frivolous and does not contain “an arguable basis in law or in fact.” See
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.
2
IV. CONCLUSION
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment (ECF No. 3) is
DENIED. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall
CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 30TH day of November
2016.
Copies furnished to:
Frederick Banks, pro se
05711-068
Butner Medium I
Federal Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
Post Office Box 1000
Butner, NC 27509
3
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?