PERALES v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice; denying as moot 5 Motion to Correct Case Name; denying as moot 6 Motion to Admit New Related Cases. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 7/17/17 (lap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 5:17‐CV‐227‐CAR
ORDER ON MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Azael Dythian Perales’ Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks to initiate an action against the
United States Secret Service, the California State Assembly, the United States Army, the
Orange County Sheriff’s Department, his former landlord, and his former property
manager for espionage and conspiracy to commit espionage. Plaintiff has moved the
Court for permission to proceed without prepayment of fees. It appears Plaintiff is
unable, because of his poverty, to pay the cost of commencing this action and still
provide for himself and any dependents, and therefore the Court GRANTS his Motion
to Proceed IFP [Doc. 2].1 However, for the reasons set forth below, the Court HEREBY
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1]. The Court also DENIES as MOOT
28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Case Name [Doc. 5] and Motion to Admit New Related
Cases [Doc. 6].2
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a court must sua sponte dismiss an indigent plaintiff’s
complaint or any portion thereof which (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.3 A complaint is “frivolous” if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.”4 Dismissals on this ground should only be ordered when
legal theories are “indisputably meritless,”5 or when the claims rely on factual
allegations that are “clearly baseless.”6 “Clearly baseless” factual allegations include
those that are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional.”7
From the Complaint and supporting documents, Plaintiff’s claims are clearly
frivolous. Plaintiff provides no factual basis whatsoever in support of his claims for
espionage and conspiracy to commit espionage, which are patently absurd and
unsupported by any colorable legal theory. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to
establish that venue is even proper in this Court. 8 Indeed, this case appears to be part of
In his Motion to Correct Case Name, Plaintiff requests the Court change “United States of America” to
“United States of America Secret Service” in this case’s caption. In his Motion to Admit New Related
Cases, Plaintiff requests the Court take note of certain cases, including unspecified Grand Jury
proceedings against United States House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and United States Senators
Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
4 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
6 Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992).
7 Id. at 32‐33 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327).
8 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
a pattern of abusive litigation practices Plaintiff has engaged in since 2009. 9 Thus, the
Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous and fails to state viable legal claims.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. 2].
However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court DISMISSES with prejudice
Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1]. The Court also DENIES as MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to
Correct Case Name [Doc. 5] and Motion to Admit New Related Cases [Doc. 6].
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of July, 2017.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Since 2009, Plaintiff has filed no fewer than 84 federal lawsuits in 36 different states, many of which have
been dismissed sua sponte as frivolous. See, e.g., Perales v. U.S. House of Representatives, et al., No. 1:12‐cv‐
00140‐JD, Doc. 8 (D.N.H. Aug. 8, 2013) (dismissing Plaintiff’s suit against “the chairpersons or directors of
fifteen federal legislative committees and executive agencies; ten California agencies, judges, mayors,
and/or other state or local officials; [and] the chief executives of a number of private corporations”);
Perales v. United States of America, No. 2:12‐cv‐11160‐PDB‐PJK, Doc. 3 (E.D. Mich. March 21, 2012)
(dismissing Plaintiff’s suit against “a collection of politicians, judges, and entertainment personalities,
including President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, and Steve Jobs”); Perales v. United States, No.
1:11‐cv‐00091‐CCM, Doc. 3 (Ct. Cl. Feb. 17, 2011) (dismissing Plaintiff’s allegations “that a traffic light
camera constitutes a weapon of mass destruction”).
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?