Griffin v. United States et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 4 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/24/2017. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KEITH L. GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-cv-6-CEJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Keith L. Griffin for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action. 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. The motion will therefore be granted. In addition, the Court will
dismiss the complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court shall 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); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A complaint fails to state a claim 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 (2007). 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).
In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give the complaint
the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, this
does not mean that procedural rules in civil litigation must be interpreted so as to excuse
mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
The Complaint
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on January 4, 2017, alleging that this Court has
federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For his claims for relief, plaintiff
writes:
I Keith Lavoyd Griffin would like the courts to award me my claim. Doctor
Devin Golden is lock up for medication fraud a claim as a representative for my
my Deloris Griffin who died March 1, 2014 default on judgement. [sic] Plus my
on claim filing of worksman comp identity theft of me beeing a victim, medical
malpractice done on me and my mother, my filing of chapter 7 bankruptcy miss
handled improperly from 1998, 2004, 2010, false allegation of abandonment . . . .
[sic]
(Docket No. 1 at 4).
Plaintiff also lists organizations with which he has filed complaints. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks
$500,000,000.00 in punitive damages, and “3 Billion in property theft.” (Id.) It is notable that
plaintiff has been a very frequent pro se and in forma pauperis litigator in this Court.
Discussion
Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Having
carefully reviewed the complaint and afforded it the benefit of a liberal construction, the Court is
unable to determine with any degree of certainty the nature of plaintiff’s allegations. The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to formulate their pleadings in an organized

2

and comprehensible manner. Civil plaintiffs are required to set out not only their alleged claims
in a simple, concise, and direct manner, but also the facts supporting such claims as to each
named defendant.

Even pro se litigants are obligated to plead specific facts and proper

jurisdiction and abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See McNeil, 508 U.S. at 113.
In the case at bar, plaintiff has failed to follow any of the foregoing requirements.
Although the Court is to give plaintiff’s complaint the benefit of a liberal construction, the Court
will not create facts or construct claims that have not been alleged. For the foregoing reasons,
the Court will dismiss this action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim against any of the
named defendants.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Docket No. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel
(Docket No. 4) is DENIED.

Dated this 24th day of January, 2017.

CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3