Johnson v. Facebook et al

Filing 8

ORDER: Plaintiff Robert W. Johnson's Complaint (Doc. #1 ) is DISMISSED without prejudice and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #3 ) is DENIED. All pending motions are TERMINATED as MOOT. Johnson may file an amended complaint and new motion to proceed IFP within 30 days of this Order. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 10/5/2023. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT W. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FACEBOOK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 23-cv-3064-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Robert W. Johnson filed this pro se action against Facebook, Meta, Rudy Giuliani,
John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Kenneth Chesebro, Jeffrey Chesebro, Jeffrey Clark, Jenna Ellis, Ray
Smith, III, Robert Cheeley, Cathleen Latham, Scott Hall, Stephen Lee, Harrison Floyd, Trevian Kutti,
Sidney Powell, Misty Hampton, Michael Roman, David Shafer, Shawn Still, Vldimir Putin, Twitter,
Meta, LLC, and Donald Trump. Johnson’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ("IFP")
(Doc. 3) is now before the Court.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an indigent party may commence a federal court action without
paying required costs and fees upon submission of an affidavit asserting the inability “to pay such fees
or give security therefor” and stating “the nature of the action, defense or appeal and the affiant’s belief
that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Because Johnson has failed to provide
a completed affidavit in support of his request to proceed IFP, the Court is unable to ascertain whether
he qualifies for indigent status. Moreover, his Complaint is subject to dismissal.
Section § 1915(e)(2) requires careful threshold scrutiny of a complaint filed by a plaintiff
seeking to proceed IFP. The Court may dismiss a case if it determines the action is clearly frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim, or is a claim for money damages against an immune defendant. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003) (“District
Page 1 of 2

judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and
thus save everyone time and legal expense”).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) explains the general requirements for properly pleading
claims against a defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Rule requires that a plaintiff's complaint
allege a short and plain statement establishing the basis for the claim and the Court's jurisdiction, as
well as a prayer for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8(d) requires that each allegation
within in the complaint be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). While pro se
plaintiffs’ allegations are given particular lenience and need not be artfully pled so long as they present
a basic story that holds together, if the lack of organization or coherence is too confusing to determine
which facts allegedly constitute wrongful conduct, dismissal is appropriate. See e.g. Swanson v.
Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010).
Johnson’s sole allegation in the Complaint is that “all defendants committed identity theft,
fraud, U.S. Constitutional violations, RICO acts and due process violations against Johnson.” As such,
the Complaint falls far short of Rule 8(a)’s pleading standards. His conclusory allegations do not
sufficiently provide notice of his claims, and therefore, fail to state a claim for which relief may be
granted. See Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011).
For the foregoing reasons, Johnson’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice
and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is DENIED. Johnson may file an amended
complaint and new motion to proceed IFP within 30 days of this Order. Failure to file a legible
amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 5, 2023

STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Page 2 of 2