Johnson v. Obama et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 4 PRO SE MOTION filed by Plaintiff Joseph Johnson, 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Joseph Johnson. 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, because the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FU RTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to recuse the Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig [Doc. #4] is DENIED as moot. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 4/10/14. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSEPH JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14-CV-504-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff=s motion for leave to commence
this action without prepayment of the filing fee [Doc. #2]. Upon consideration of
the financial information provided with the motion, the Court will grant plaintiff
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915. Additionally, after
carefully reviewing the complaint, 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 may 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 against a defendant who
is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if Ait lacks an arguable basis in
either law or in fact.@ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if does not plead Aenough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).
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 (1992).
Discussion
Plaintiff brings this action for $3,000,000,000 in monetary damages against
a wide variety of government and non-government officials, including the current
president of the United States, justices of the Supreme Court, the United States
attorney general, state and federal judges, the director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, the director of the National Security Agency, the CEO of Tenet
Healthcare Corporation, attorneys, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis,
and numerous others. Plaintiff states that the complaint concerns a multitude of
issues, including "burglary/housebreaking," theft of human remains, criminal
solicitation and trespass, false impersonations, second degree murder, "fraud upon
estate," corruption of public office, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, and
2

fraudulent use of the seal of the United States; however, the Court is unable to
ascertain the precise nature of plaintiff=s allegations against the named defendants.1
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to formulate their
pleadings in an organized and comprehensible manner. Even pro se litigants are
obligated to plead specific facts as to each named defendant and must abide by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; however, plaintiff has failed to do so in this case.
See U.S. v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994); Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2)(complaint should contain short and plain statement of claims);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(2)(each claim shall be simple, concise, and direct); Fed.R.Civ.P.
10(b)(parties are to separate their claims within their pleadings Athe contents of
which shall be limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances@).
Although the complaint is to be afforded the benefit of a liberal construction, the
Court will not create facts or claims that have not been alleged. Plaintiff is
required to set out not only his alleged claims in a simple, concise, and direct
manner, but also the facts supporting his claims as to each named defendant. See
1

The seventy-two page complaint is a compilation of United States Supreme
Court cases, random statements, such as "Judicial notice RSMo., Sec. 490.080,
failing to 'speak' a requirement imposed by law constitutes 'dereliction of duty';
OH. Revised Code Ch. 2921.44(A)(2), and conclusory phrases, such as
ADefendants are liable to Plaintiff for non-payment of debt," and "Defendant
United States willfully did not enforce its civil and criminal laws."
3

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009) (legal conclusions and
threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action that are supported by mere
conclusory statements are not entitled to the assumption of truth).

Because

plaintiff has failed to do so, and the complaint is nonsensical, fanciful, and largely
incoherent, the Court will dismiss this action as legally frivolous and for failure to
state a claim or cause of action. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
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, because the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion to recuse the
Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig [Doc. #4] is DENIED as moot. 2

2

This action was reassigned to the Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., on
April 9, 2014.
4

A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 10th day of April, 2014.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5