Jones v. Louisiana State Bar Association et al
Filing
63
ORDER AND REASONS Dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 3/16/2012.(gec, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DONALD G. JONES
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 12-12
LOUISIANA STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION, ET AL
SECTION: J(3)
ORDER & REASONS
Pro se Plaintiff Donald G. Jones brings this action seeking
recovery of $50 billion for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita, $22 million in personal damages, and extensive
injunctive relief against a variety of persons involved in
various hurricane relief efforts and actions affecting his
Louisiana properties.
Among the defendants named in Plaintiff’s
lawsuit are the District of Columbia Bar Association, the
Louisiana State Bar Association, several law firms and a number
of individual attorneys, various state law enforcement officials,
and at least two federal judges.
Plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.
After dismissing
Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants located in District of
Columbia, the court transferred the case to this Court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for further disposition.1
While the case
was pending, and before the Louisiana defendants named in
Plaintiff’s suit had been served, Plaintiff filed two motions for
temporary restraining orders, which the Court denied as frivolous
or otherwise unintelligible.2
Having reviewed the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint,
the Court finds that his claims should be dismissed.
The terms
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) authorize a federal court to
dismiss an action in which the plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis, as Plaintiff is here, at any time if the court
determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious.”
This
standard allows a court to review and dismiss sua sponte any
claim premised upon untenable legal theories or which lacks any
arguable basis in fact.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31
(1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The Fifth
Circuit has clarified that a claim is frivolous where “the facts
alleged are ‘fantastic or delusional scenarios' or the legal
theory upon which a complaint relies is ‘indisputably
meritless.’”
Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir.
1999)(quoting Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994).
1
See Rec. Docs. 42; 43.
2
See Rec. Docs. 57-58; 60-61.
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are manifestly
frivolous.
The sprawling allegations of his 143-page Complaint
levy a variety of claims against a vast number of defendants –
129, by the Court’s count -- but the gist of these allegations is
that each of the named defendants conspired in broad conspiracies
and other allegedly unlawful acts, the effect of which was to
benefit only private interests and to deprive the “true” victims
of Hurricane Katrina from obtaining federal disaster relief
funds.
Even granting a degree of leniency because Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the Court finds these allegations are
fanciful, fantastic, and somewhat delusional.
“Pro se status
does not give plaintiffs a prerogative to file meritless claims.”
Olstad v. Collier, 205 F. App’x 308, 310 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing
Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir.
1986).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED
with prejudice.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of March, 2012.
____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?