Bellant v. Obama et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JUSTIN J. BELLANT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-11146

BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES,
FBI JAMES COMEY, CIA JOHN O. BRENNAN,
And NSA MICHAEL ROGERS,
et al.,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
___________________________________/
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Justin J. Bellant, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint naming
“Barack Obama, United States, FBI James Coney, CIA John O. Brennan, and NSA
Michael Rogers” as defendants. He says he is bringing a claim against all defendants
for violations of the his civil rights and for defendants’ commission of criminal acts. He
seeks varied forms of injunctive relief and one hundred billion dollars in money
damages.
Plaintiff also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. Based upon the information in
the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
GRANTS plaintiff in forma pauperis (IFP) status. For the reasons that follow, however,
the complaint will be dismissed.

II. Legal Standard
Under § 1915 (e)(2) a Court may dismiss a complaint at any time if it determines
that the case is frivolous or malicious, that the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. A complaint "is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Moreover, a federal court is always
“under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction,” FW/PBS, Inc. v.
City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990), and a federal court may not entertain an action
over which it has no jurisdiction. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des
Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701 (1982). Indeed, a court is required to dismiss
an action at any time if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3);
See Wagenknecht v. United States, 533 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir.2008) (“a district court
may sua sponte dismiss an action when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”).
The Court must read pro se complaints indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly
irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
III. Discussion
The Court has read the complaint. It is virtually unintelligible. As best as can be
gleaned, plaintiff alleges defendants violated his civil rights, the constitution, and several
criminal laws stemming from alleged profiling by the FBI and CIA, electronic monitoring
and harassment of plaintiff “via low frequency radio waves,” and have improperly
labeled him a “domestic terrorist.”
The complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a
2

claim. Plaintiff cites 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the basis for his claims. In order “[t]o state a
claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation
was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Leach v. Shelby Cnty.
Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1244 (6th Cir.1989). The complaint does not allege that the
actions of any defendant can be attributed to the state. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot
make out a § 1983 claim against any of the defendants.
Moreover, to the extent plaintiff relies on criminal statutes as a basis for his
claims, criminal statutes do not provide plaintiff with a private cause of action. See
Kafele v. Frank & Wooldridge Co., 180 F. App'x 307, 308–09 (6th Cir.2004)
In addition, plaintiff’s claims are factually frivolous. His claims of profiling and
electronic surveillance lack an arguable basis in law and fact.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the complaint is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The
Court also certifies that any appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 14, 2016
Detroit, Michigan

3