Cougle v. Bush

Filing 4

ORDER & REASONS that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED as frivolous and failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, pursuant to 28 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). Any pending motions shall be DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 5/25/17. (dno)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHRISTOPHER A. COUGLE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-5143

GEORGE H.W. BUSH

SECTION "L" (2)

ORDER & REASONS
Plaintiff, Christopher A. Cougle, has filed this lawsuit pro se and in forma pauperis
against former United States President George H.W. Bush. The Court has considered his claims,
and finds that the complaint should be dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A(b)(1), for being frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“A federal court may dismiss a claim in forma pauperis ‘if satisfied that the action is

frivolous or malicious.’ ” Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir.1994) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d)). A complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Reeves
v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994); Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 1993).
“Section 1915(d) ‘accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the
complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly
baseless.’ ” Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 883 (1994) (quoting Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). Even

1

under the broadest reading, Cougle’s complaint is frivolous as it clearly lacks an arguable basis
in law and fact.
Dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim is analyzed by the
same standard used for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Newsome v.
E.E.O.C., 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations omitted).
Pro se pleadings are reviewed under a less stringent standard than those drafted by
attorneys and are entitled to a liberal construction. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21
(1972). However, pro se litigants must still provide sufficient fact to support their claims;
conclusory allegations are insufficient. United States v. Pineda, 988 F.2d 22, 23 (5th Cir. 1993)
(citations omitted).
II.

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
Plaintiff alleges that President H.W. Bush genetically engineered diseases, such as HIV

and autism, had various public figures killed, and routinely monitors Plaintiff. In addition,
Plaintiff lists various other allegations related to products or services the former President uses,
such as the type of cars he owns, the computers and cell phones he uses, and the brand of hotels
he stays at. Plaintiff makes numerous allegations regarding President Donald Trump, Fox News,
the FBI and the CIA. See generally R. Doc. 1.
III.

ANALYSIS
Even interpreting these claims with the liberal construction to which this pro se pleading

is entitled, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are not merely unlikely, but are irrational,
wholly incredible, fabricated, and at times delusional. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–

2

21 (1972); Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115–16 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992)). Thus, Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim. Id.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED as frivolous and failing to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted, pursuant to 28 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A(b)(1). Any pending motions shall be DISMISSED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of May, 2017.

_______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3