Warren v. Federal Government
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: 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 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 Rodney W. Sippel on 8/22/13. (LGK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
REV. CALVIN WARREN,
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the application of Rev. Calvin Warren for
leave to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the
application, the Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any portion of the
filing fee, and therefore, plaintiff will be granted in forma pauperis status. For the
reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
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 “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570
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 "contextspecific 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 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.
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, 32-33
Plaintiff seeks nine hundred trillion dollars in this action brought for the
violation of his constitutional rights.
The named defendants are the Federal
Government, President Barack Obama and his entire Administration, Jessie Jackson,
Jr., “the whole prejudice black race,” “the whole prejudice white race,” Dexter King,
Martin Luther King, III, Martha Williams, Unknown Faracon, Dr. Elijah Mahomet,
and “the whole black police force of Arkansas.”
Plaintiff alleges defendants are trying to murder him and “are premediately[sic]
aggravatedly [sic] beat[ing] [his] brother Rev. John Warren . . . while he is in intensive
care in the hospital in Little Rock, Arkansas, . . . and they are trying to murder him.”
In addition, plaintiff claims that the Obama Administration is “using racism, terrorism,
and satanism against [his] brother,” and defendants have assaulted plaintiff’s brother
with brass knuckles.
Although a pro se complaint is to be liberally construed, the complaint must
contain a short and plain summary of facts sufficient to give fair notice of the claim
asserted. Means v. Wilson, 522 F.2d 833, 840 (8th Cir. 1975). The Court will not
supply additional facts or construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that
have not been pleaded. 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 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics,403 U.S. 388 (1971). For these reasons, the complaint will be
dismissed, without prejudice.
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 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 22nd day of August, 2013.
JOHN A. ROSS
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?