Barnes v. United States of America
OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PRO SE COMPLAINT Under FOIA and the Privacy Act for the Release of Records Concerning Request against United States of America filed by Plaintiff Marlyn J Barnes. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it is malicious. Plaintiff NOTIFIED that this case qualifies as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 10/17/16. (cc: Marlyn J Barnes). (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
MARLYN J. BARNES,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CAUSE NO. 1:16-CV-358 RLM
OPINION AND ORDER
Marlyn J. Barnes, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint seeking records from the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. He makes this request pursuant to
the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
A court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. “A
document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations
In United States v. Barnes, 1:06-CR-23 (N.D. Ind. filed May 24, 2006), Mr. Barnes was
convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute. The conspiracy
was“to steal a local dealer’s stash of drugs.” United States v. Barnes, 602 F.3d 790, 792 (7th
Cir. 2010). What he didn’t know at the time was that one of the “conspirators” was a
federal agent and there were no drugs to be stolen. “This conspiracy involved a fake
shipment of drugs traveling from Texas to Fort Wayne, Indiana.” Id.
Mr. Barnes now asks the Bureau to provide information about “the source of the
drugs alleged at trial [as] a person identified as ‘Oodles’ and an associate identified as
‘Junior.’” DE 1 at 4. Mr. Barnes knows (and has known for more than a decade), that it was
a “fictional drug shipment . . ..” United States v. Barnes, 602 F.3d 790, 793 (7th Cir. 2010).
He knows that “no such shipment existed.” United States v. Barnes, 660 F.3d 1000, 1002
(7th Cir. 2011). He knows that Oodles and Junior were as fictional as the drugs they were
described as shipping. Asking for information about them is a malicious attempt to force
the government to waste resources defending a meritless lawsuit.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it is
(2) NOTIFIES Marlyn J. Barnes that this case qualifies as a strike pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
ENTERED: October 17 , 2016
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
United States District Court
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?