Flores v. United States Attorney General et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 2 plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissing the present action. PLEASE REFER TO THE ORDER FOR FILING RESTRICTIONS. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 1/29/2014. Mailed to pro se party Eric Flores by regular mail. (mss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Eric Flores,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 14-2042-JTM

United States Attorney General, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court following the filing of a Complaint (Dkt. 1) by pro se
plaintiff Eric Flores, coupled with his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 2). In
addition, Flores has filed a Notice under which he asks the court for a stay while the action
is transferred to the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (Dkt. 3).
The plaintiff’s 104-page Complaint is a verbatim repetition of the Complaint he
previously filed with this Court in Flores v. Attorney General, No. 13-1137-MLB. Judge Belot
dismissed the Complaint in that case, finding Flores’s claims were both frivolous, and
“eerily similar” to yet another Flores complaint which had been dismissed by the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal
of the Colorado action, finding that Flores’s claims of being tortured by orbiting satellites
was indeed frivolous, in that the complaint rose to the level of the irrational or the wholly

incredible, and depicting scenarios which were fantastic or delusional. Flores v. U.S. Atty.
Gen., No. 11-1277, 2011 WL 4908363, 2 (10th Cir. Oct. 17, 2011).
Accordingly, the present action is dismissed, and leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied, for the reasons stated by Judge Belot and in the Colorado action.
Nor may Flores evade this result by his request to transfer the action to the Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation. “The pendency of a motion ... pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 does not
affect or suspend orders and pretrial proceedings in the district court in which the action
is pending and does not in any way limit the pretrial jurisdiction of that court.” J.P.M.L.
Rule 2.1(d). As a result, a court “should not automatically stay discovery, postpone rulings
on pending motions, or generally suspend further rulings upon a parties' motion to the
MDL Panel for transfer and consolidation.” Perry v. Luu, 1:13–CV–00729–AWI, 2013 WL
3354446, at *3 (E.D.Cal. July 3, 2013). See Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F.Supp. 1358, 1360
(C.D.Cal.1997). Thus, courts should not stay proceedings pursuant to § 1407 where the stay
will not affect the controlling law and will serve only to delay an inevitable and necessary
result. See Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., v. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, 54 F.Supp.2d 1042, 1047
(D.Kan.1999).
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 29th day of January, 2014, that the Motion to
Proceed (Dkt. 2) is denied; and the present action is hereby dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Flores may not file any further document or action
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas without the express written
consent of a United States District Judge allowing such filing.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE