HUNTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE as Frivolous. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 4/2/2018. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

:
:
:
Plaintiff.
:
:
vs.
:
:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
:
OF JUSTICE, et al.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
____________________________________:
ERIC JEROME HUNTER,

No. 7:18-cv-00026-HL-TQL

ORDER
This case is currently before the Court for screening as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff Eric Jerome Hunter,
an inmate confined at Valdosta State Prison, filed the above-captioned proceeding seeking
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested to proceed without the prepayment of filing
fees. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice.
I.

Preliminary Review of Plaintiff’s Complaint

A. Standard for Preliminary Review
Under the PLRA, the district courts are obligated to conduct a preliminary screening
of every complaint filed by a prisoner who seeks redress from a government entity, official,
1

or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Screening is also required, under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e), when the plaintiff is proceeding IFP. When conducting a preliminary review, the
district court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and make all
inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir.
2004). Pro se pleadings are also “held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys,” and a pro se compliant is thus “liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). The district court, however,
cannot allow a plaintiff to litigate frivolous, conclusory, or speculative claims. As part of
the preliminary screening, the court shall dismiss a complaint, or any part thereof, prior to
service, if it is apparent that the plaintiff’s claims are frivolous or if his allegations fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted – i.e., that the plaintiff is not entitled to
relief based on the facts alleged. See § 1915A(b); § 1915(e).
To state a viable claim, the complaint must include “enough factual matter” to – not
only “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests” – but to also create “a reasonable expectation” that discovery will reveal evidence to
prove the claim(s). Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). The
claims cannot be speculative or based solely on beliefs or suspicions; each must be
supported by allegations of relevant and discoverable fact. Id.

Thus, neither legal

conclusions nor a recitation of legally relevant terms, standing alone, is sufficient to survive
preliminary review. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (“labels and conclusions”

2

or “a formulaic recitation of the elements” of a cause of action is not enough). Claims
without an arguable basis in law or fact will be dismissed as frivolous. See Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)
(claims frivolous if “clearly baseless” or “legal theories are indisputably meritless”).
B. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff brings this complaint against The United States Department of Justice, the
United States Department of the Treasury, the United States Security and Exchange
Commission, the Social Security Administration, J. P. Morgan Chase Bank, Franklin
Templeton and Associates, Suntrust Bank, First National Bank of Grady County, Mutual
Bank of Omaha and Insurance, Empire Blue Cross, Lincoln Financial Group, American
Red Cross, the Department of Defense, Five Star Credit Union, Bank of Wachovia, and
Discover Bank.

Plaintiff alleges that the United States Department of Justice froze his

assets pursuant to a criminal investigation for insider trading related to the “illegal merger”
between J.P. Morgan and Associates, the Bank of Manhattan, and Chase Bank. Compl.
19, EF No. 1.

Plaintiff, who had accounts exceeding one hundred million dollars with

the Bank of Manhattan, made trillions of dollars in profit from the merger. Id. at 20;
Amended Compl. 11, ECF No. 6. The FBI thus suspected Plaintiff of having insider
knowledge of the merger and “froze” or seized his financial accounts and personal
property. ECF No. 1 at 20-21; ECF No. 6 at 11. Plaintiff seeks the return of over 172
trillion dollars in seized assets. ECF No. 6 at 13.

3

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to satisfy the minimal standards of rationality required at
the preliminary screening stage and, therefore, the instant complaint is frivolous. The
violations Plaintiff alleges and the relief he seeks are predicated upon factual allegations
that are “fanciful, fantastic, irrational, and/or delusional.” Porter v. Governor of the State
of Fla., 667 F. App’x 766, 767 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 35,
32-33 (1992)). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and pleadings are replete with impossible
scenarios, grandiose ideas, and unbelievable happenings. For example, Plaintiff alleges
he founded QualComm at age seven, ran several companies deemed “to big to fail” by age
seventeen, once owned a car that disappeared into thin air, and he enjoyed “Domestic and
Foreign Immunity.” 1 ECF No. 6 at 8, 11. Where, as here, “the facts alleged rise to the
level of the irrational or the whole incredible,” dismissal is appropriate. Gray v. U.S.
Government, 540 F. App’x 916, 917 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33).
C. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to the above, Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and DISMISSED without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of April, 2018.

s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

1

In his initial pleading, Plaintiff alleged he is a Nancy Reagan appointee that quelled gang activity in seventeen
states, a member of the Navy Seals and Army Rangers, an expert in counter intelligence, an associate at seven major
banks, and once had a credit card that could acquire five star hotel reservations on the moon with short notice. ECF
No. 1 at 12, 14, 20.

4