Flores v. United States Attorney General et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Eric Flores motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because it is legally frivolous, delusional, and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 4/17/15. (CSG)
UNI TED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ERIC FLORES,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:15-CV-55-SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the application of Eric Flores, a resident
of El Paso, Texas, for leave to commence this action without prepayment of the
filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915 [Doc. #2]. Upon consideration of the
financial information provided with the application, the Court will grant plaintiff
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In addition, for the reasons stated below, the
Court will dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint
filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis in
either law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action is
malicious if it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named defendants and
not for the purpose of vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F.
Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D.N.C. 1987), aff'd 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987).
An
action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
Aenough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570 (2007).
To determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, the Court must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the Court must
identify the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of
truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009). These include "legal
conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that
are] supported by mere conclusory statements."
Id. at 1949. Second, the Court
must determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief.
Id. at
1950-51. This is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw
on its judicial experience and common sense."
Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is
required to plead facts that show more than the "mere possibility of misconduct."
Id. The Court must review the factual allegations in the complaint "to determine
if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief."
Id. at 1951. When faced with
alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct, the Court may exercise its
2
judgment in determining whether plaintiff's conclusion is the most plausible or
whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred.
Id. at 1950, 51-52.
Moreover, in reviewing a pro se complaint under ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court
must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal construction.
Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in
favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless.
Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
The Complaint
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a 64-page complaint titled:
APetition to Challenge the Constitutionality of the First Amendment.@ The named
defendants are the United States Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Plaintiff also names 19 Ainterested parties,@ and he appears to be
seeking class certification. Plaintiff complains that unspecified persons in Missouri
and elsewhere have inflicted torture in the form of “nuclear advanced technology
with a direct signal to [a] satellite in outer space,” in order to control and harm him,
as well as numerous other Mexican-Americans, who are family members, friends,
and/or acquaintances of plaintiff.
3
Discussion
A. Class Certification
Plaintiff=s request for class certification will be denied. A pro se litigant
may bring his own claims to federal court; however, not being an attorney, he may
not assert the claims of others.
See 28 U.S.C. ' 1654; see also 7A Wright, Miller
& Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d ' 1769.1 (class representatives
cannot appear pro se).
B. The Merits
Having carefully reviewed the complaint, the Court concludes that plaintiff=s
factual allegations are delusional and fail to state a claim or cause of action. In
this regard, the Court takes judicial notice of two substantially similar cases that
plaintiff filed in the District of Maine.
See Flores v. U.S. Attorney General, No.
2:13-CV-52-DBH (D. Me. 2013); Flores v. U.S. Attorney General, No.
2:13-CV-7-DBH (D. Me. 2013).
In both cases, the District Court of Maine
summarily dismissed plaintiff=s allegations under ' 1915(e)(2)(B) and warned
plaintiff that any further frivolous filings would result in filing restrictions being
placed upon him. In addition, the Court stated:
A review of PACER case locator indicates there are over fifty-four
cases filed on the national level by Eric Flores. I have not examined
all of those cases, but I have reviewed a significant number in order to
be satisfied that the same individual is responsible for most of these
4
filings based upon the nature of the allegations in the complaints. In
an order dated May 25, 2012, United States District Court Judge
Philip Martinez of the Western District of Texas recounted Flores=s
litigation history in El Paso and denied Flores=s application to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal. Judge Martinez noted that Flores was
previously sanctioned and barred from further frivolous filings in that
Court in 2011. In re Eric Flores, EP-12-MC-184-PRM (W.D. Tex.
2012).
Flores v. U.S. Attorney General, 2013 WL 1122719 (D. Me. 2013). The District
Court of Maine further noted that filing restrictions were placed on plaintiff after
he had filed at least a dozen complaints in the District of Columbia, all of which
had been dismissed.
Id.
Thereafter, in an effort to avoid those restrictions,
plaintiff filed several identical complaints in New Mexico and Ohio.
Id. In
dismissing Flores v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 2:13-CV-7-DBH (D. Me. 2013),
the Court stated that it was Ajoin[ing] the long list of jurisdictions that have
screened this or similar complaints filed by Flores and concluded that they contain
>the hallucinations of a troubled man.= Flores v. United States Attorney General,
No. 2:12-CV-987-MEF-TFM (M.D. Ala.); see also, Flores v. United States Dep=t
of Health and Human Servs., et al., No. 3:12-CV-92 (M.D. Tenn.); Flores v.
United States Attorney General, No. 4:12-CV-4144-SOH (W.D. Ark.); Flores v.
United States Attorney General, No. 4:12-CV-4154-TSH (D. Mass.); and Flores v.
United States Attorney General, No. 12-CV-1250-JPS (E.D. Wis.).@
5
In addition, the Court takes judicial notice of a similar lawsuit, Flores v. U.S.
Attorney General, No. 4:13-CV-525-ERW (E.D. Mo.), that was dismissed as
legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim or cause of action.
For these reasons, the instant action will be dismissed as legally frivolous
and delusional under ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff is warned that any further
frivolous filings may result in filing restrictions being placed upon him in the
Eastern District of Missouri.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or
cause process to issue upon the complaint, because it is legally frivolous,
delusional, and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
See 28
U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 17th day of April, 2015.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?