Moore v. Trump
Filing
6
OPINION and ORDER Dismissing the 1 Complaint Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CMul)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ERIC DEVON MOORE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 16-CV-14091
vs.
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
DONALD TRUMP,
Defendant.
_______________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court on the Court’s own review of the complaint
[docket number 1]. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is dismissed.
In his pro se complaint, plaintiff Eric Devon Moore—aka “LOCK-BOX”—
asserts antitrust violations, a qui tam claim, the theft of his intellectual property by the (nonexistent) Trump Administration, and a stay of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62. In support of
these claims, he extensively quotes Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and an alleged 1963
John F. Kennedy speech about the cold war and nuclear development, he includes a drawing of
“Bessy,” a “cash cow” and his “new optimism,” and he recites a bevy of questionable economic
facts and data, which is further muddied by (seemingly explanatory) hand-drawn charts. The
heart of his claim seems to be that he does not particularly like the U.S. government’s current
trade policies.
The complaint is accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis,
which the Court has now granted. Having reviewed the allegations of plaintiff’s now-filed
complaint, the Court finds that this suit must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as
frivolous and under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), upon permitting a plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court must “dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the case is
“frivolous” or that the complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” Here,
the complaint fails to state a viable claim over which this Court may exercise subject matter
jurisdiction.
Indeed, having reviewed the complaint, the Court is at a loss to identify (i) a cause
of action that plaintiff wishes to pursue, (ii) any allegations suggesting how the sole defendant
named in the complaint, President-elect Donald Trump, might have caused or contributed to any
injury allegedly suffered by plaintiff, especially given that he is not yet inaugurated, or (iii) the
relief that plaintiff seeks to recover in this suit. Rather, the complaint is simply a confusing
jumble of references to federal statutes, famous speeches, and regulations, interspersed with text
that does nothing to clarify the purpose or relevance of these citations.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(ii), (d)(1), plaintiff need only provide a “short and
plain statement” of his claims, and the allegations in support of these claims “must be simple,
concise, and direct.” These standards establish only a modest barrier for a pro se litigant to
surmount, particularly in light of the Court’s obligation to liberally construe pro se pleadings. In
this case, however, plaintiff’s submissions stubbornly resist any effort to discern the claims he
wishes to assert, the facts in support of these claims, or the relief he seeks. Because these
pleadings lack anything resembling the requisite “short and plain statement of [a] claim showing
2
that [plaintiff] is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the Court concludes that this suit is
frivolous, and that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The
complaint is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
__s/ Bernard A. Friedman__________
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 28, 2016
Detroit, Michigan
3
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?