Mazzeo-Unum v. Expert Witness

Filing 4

OPINION 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, because the complaint is legally friv olous 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 plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #1, p. 7 of 19] is DENIED as moot.A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. 2 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 2/27/15. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BRUNO GIOVANNI-MICHEL
MAZZEO-UNUM,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXPERT WITNESS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15CV364 HEA

OPINION, 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 finds that plaintiff is
financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee. As a result, plaintiff will be
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 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).
The Complaint
Plaintiff has filed a complaint for monetary damages against a myriad of
defendants, including “Expert Witness,” Roswell Memorial Park Hospital,
University of Scranton, the United States Department of Education, New York
University Hospital Westchester County Medical Center, and Mount Vernon
Hospital. Having carefully reviewed the complaint, the Court finds it impossible to
ascertain the nature of plaintiff=s allegations.1

1

The complaint is basically a compilation of disjointed thoughts and long,
run-on sentences relative to a myriad matters concerning employment and housing
discrimination, patent and trademark infringements, violations of civil rights and the
2

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 and proper jurisdiction 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 Court is to give
plaintiff=s complaint 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. Because plaintiff has failed to
do so, and the complaint is nonsensical, the Court will dismiss this action as legally
frivolous and for failure to state a claim or cause of action against any of the named
defendants.
Accordingly,
American with Disabilities Act, theft, grants, royalties, and “international
inventions.” For example, plaintiff states, "Initial writ including ADA by itself not
mixed in but should have been. Certain situations *FDAP-4 for the military 4
branches. Civil PL rules sometimes apply various #’s."
3

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 for appointment of
counsel [Doc. #1, p. 7 of 19] is DENIED as moot.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2015

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4