Hodges v. Obama

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. # 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plainti ff's Motion for Impeachment of President Barack Obama [Doc. # 5 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. # 4 ] is DENIED AS MOOT. An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 08/05/2015. (CLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SUMAYAH HODGES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.

No. 4:15CV1182 SPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff=s pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Also before the Court
is plaintiff’s Motion for Impeachment of President Barack Obama. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '
1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other
grounds, is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B). After reviewing the financial information
attached to plaintiff’s complaint, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
However, after reviewing plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety, the Court will dismiss this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a complaint must plead more than “legal conclusions”
and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A plaintiff must
demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.”

1

The Complaint
Plaintiff, a resident of St. Louis, Missouri, brings this action alleging, generally, a
violation of her civil rights. In her complaint, plaintiff asserts only that she would like to have
President Barack Obama impeached, and she states that she will supplement her allegations and
her request for relief after she is appointed counsel.
In her attachment, entitled “Request for Impeachment of President Barack Obama” and
“Request for Urgent Protection Order,” plaintiff states that she believes the President has failed
to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. She recounts that she believes her
own due process rights have been violated, and she lists generally a plethora of times and places
when she believes wrongs were done to her. For example, plaintiff states that she was implanted
with a “biomedical device,” and afterwards she began intercepting “all forms of communication,
including postal services.” Plaintiff states that her “home, vehicle and business” were bugged,
and she was “forced into involuntary servitude.” Plaintiff additionally states that her relationship
with her mother was interfered with and the government hired an actor to look like her father.
Plaintiff has many additional allegations along this same vein, including the assertion that the
government stole her dog of eight years in order to install a surveillance system in her home and
destroyed her landscaping in order to control her sprinkler system. Although plaintiff does not
state that the President of the United States initiated each of these acts, she does intimate that the
government was involved in a conspiracy of “surveillance” and “tracking” her from 2009 until
the present.
Plaintiff’s assertions, that unnamed governmental officials controlled by the President of
the United States, have acted against her, controlled her mind, and surveilled her home and car
over the past six years, describes a fantastic or delusional scenario that is subject to dismissal

2

under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also, Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
Moreover, plaintiff’s request that this Court impeach the President of the United States
for the acts described herein, is untenable, as the powers of impeachment belong to Congress,
and impeachment may only be had “for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.” See Art. I §§ 2 and 3 and Art. II, § 4 of the Constitution. As such,
the motion will be denied.
In light of the aforementioned, this action will be dismissed, without prejudice, as
frivolous, pursuant to 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 this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Impeachment of President
Barack Obama [Doc. #5] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc.
#4] is DENIED AS MOOT.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 5th day of August, 2015.

/s/ Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3