Greenlee v. Social Security Administration et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiffs complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is denied; and plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel (Doc . 4) is denied. See attached for more details. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 4/19/2011.Mailed to pro se party: Mr. Richard Greenlee, 5228 Argentine Blvd., Kansas City, KS 66106 by certified mail; Certified Tracking Number: 70101060000094210830 AND regular mail.(bmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RICHARD GREENLEE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 11-2204-SAC

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On April 11, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint against the
Social Security Administration and other unnamed defendants (Doc.
1).

Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(Doc. 3), and a motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 4).
Plaintiff’s statement of claim is as follows:
Discrimination By Technician watching &
Guard, counter to office workers for my payee
rights as a Disabled person Being mental &
physically Abuse and Able To Take care of my
own finances as of legal mind of Health &
Welfare.
(Doc. 1 at 3-4).

Plaintiff seeks to become his own payee and to

recover money damages (Doc. 1 at 4).

Plaintiff goes on to state

that this cause, or a substantially equivalent complaint, was
previously filed in the court, and that his claims had also been
presented to the postal service, the military and a city (Doc. 1
at 5).

1

Plaintiff has filed 13 prior cases in this court:
1.

Greenlee v. U.S. Postal Service, 93-2066-KHV

2.

Greenlee v. U.S. Postal Service, et al., 95-2525-JWL

3.

Greenlee v. U.S. Postal Service, 04-2570-MLB

4.

Greenlee v. U.S. Postal Service, 05-2509-JWL

5.

Greenlee v. U.S. Postal Service, 06-2167-CM

6.

Greenlee v. U.S. Postal Service, 08-2479-CM

7.

Greenlee v. Delmar Gardens of Overland Park, et al.,
08-2396-GLR

8.

Greenlee v. Village Shalom, Inc., 08-2402-EFM

9.

Greenlee v. Bonner Springs Nursing and Rehabilitation, et al.
09-2105-JAR

10. Greenlee v. United States District Court, et al., 09-2243-FJG
11. Greenlee v. United States Marines, et al., 10-2036-CM
12. Greenlee v. United States District Court for the District of
Missouri, et al., 10-2039-CM
13. Greenlee v. McDerrmott, et al., 10-2525-JTM
In all of the above cases, the complaints were dismissed by
the court.

These cases were dismissed because of plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, or failure to
obey an order of the court.
In Greenlee v. U.S. Postal Serv., Case No. 06-2167, Judge
Murgia issued an Order imposing the following restrictions:
Plaintiff is prohibited from filing another
case in this district against this defendant,
unless he is represented by counsel or,
if he proceeds pro se unless he provides a
notarized affidavit that verifies with
2

particularity that the new action is
commenced on grounds that are distinguishable
from those previously dismissed. Any proposed
complaint against defendant must list all
previous actions against defendant and
provide notice of this filing restriction.
Upon compliance with these requirements, the
court will review the complaint and determine
whether it should be accepted for filing.
Greenlee v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 06-2167-CM, 2007 WL 141016, at
*6 (D. Kan. Jan. 17, 2007). The filing restrictions imposed on
plaintiff were affirmed by the Tenth Circuit.

Greenlee v. U.S.

Postal Service, 247 Fed. Appx. 953, 954 n. 3 (10th Cir.
2007)(finding, “given the frequency, redundancy, heft, and sheer
implausibility of Greenlee’s complaints, these modest
restrictions are more than appropriate to protect the limited
resources of the district court as well our own.”).
In the case of Greenlee v. United States District Court for
the District of Kansas, et al., Case No. 10-2039-CM, the court
stated:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the
court may dismiss sua sponte an in forma
pauperis action as frivolous or as failing to
state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d
1170, 1172–73 (10th Cir. 1997). Such
dismissal is warranted “if the plaintiff
cannot make a rational argument on the law
and facts,” id. at 1172 (citations and
quotations omitted), or if it is “patently
obvious” that the plaintiff cannot prevail on
the facts alleged and that amendment would be
futile, id. at 1173 (citations and quotations
omitted).
The court may find that a claim is frivolous
3

when “the facts alleged rise to the level of
the irrational or the wholly incredible,
whether or not there are judicially
noticeable facts available to contradict
them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33
(1992). But the court may not dismiss a
complaint merely because the allegations are
unlikely or improbable. Id. Generally, a
complaint is legally frivolous if it rests on
an “indisputably meritless legal theory” such
as an “infringement of a legal interest which
clearly does not exist.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
The court is mindful of the fact that
plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Because of
plaintiff’s status, the court affords him
some leniency in construing his complaint.
Asselin v. Shawnee Mission Med. Ctr., Inc.,
894 F. Supp. 1479, 1484 (D. Kan. 1995)
(citation omitted). The court may not,
however, assume the role of advocate for
plaintiff simply because he is proceeding pro
se. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991). The court should not
“construct arguments or theories for the
plaintiff in the absence of any discussion of
those issues.” Drake v. City of Fort Collins,
927 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991)
(citations omitted). Nor should the court
“supply additional factual allegations to
round out a plaintiff’s complaint or
construct a legal theory on a
plaintiff’s behalf.” Whitney, 113 F.3d at
1173–74 (citation omitted).
The court cannot find a viable claim in
plaintiff’s complaint. See Sanner v. United
States, 979 F. Supp. 1327, 1328 (D. Kan.
1997). Plaintiff’s complaint consists of a
compilation of unintelligible and disjointed
thoughts. See Triplett v. Triplett, No.
Civ-A. 04-2223-CM, 2005 WL 2122802, at *1–2
(D. Kan. Aug. 8, 2005); Stanfield v.
Whistler, No. 01-4030-JAR, 2002 WL 975894, at
*1 (D. Kan. Feb. 25, 2002) (citation
omitted); Moll v. Sweaver, No. 97-4183-SAC,
1997 WL 823573, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 18,
4

1997). The court finds that there is no
logical construction of plaintiff’s complaint
from which to divine any cognizable claim.
The court believes that any attempt to remedy
the complaint would be futile.
Greenlee v. United States District Court for the District of
Kansas, et al., Case No. 10-2039-CM (Doc. 7 at 2-3); Richard H.
Greenlee v. United States Marines, et al., Case No. 10-2036-CM
(Doc. 17 at 2-3)(same findings).
After a review of plaintiff’s proposed complaint as well as
plaintiff’s filing history, it is clear that plaintiff’s case is
frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief can be
granted within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff also filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis
and for appointment of counsel.

Because plaintiff’s complaint

fails to state a claim, these motions will also be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint
counsel (Doc. 4) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is
dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
Copies of this order shall be mailed to the defendant via
regular and certified mail.

5

Dated this 19th day of April 2011, Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Sam A. Crow
Sam A. Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge

6