Guillory v. United States Federal Government
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 2 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of d ismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel (Docket No. 3 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 2/7/2017. (NEB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DOMINIQUE JANNIELLE THERE
UNITED STATES FEDERAL
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court upon the motion of plaintiff Dominique Jannielle There
Guillory for leave to proceed herein in forma pauperis. The Court has reviewed the financial
information submitted in support, and will grant the motion. The Court will also dismiss the
Legal Standard on Initial Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
A plaintiff must
demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.”
Id. at 679. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to, inter alia, draw upon judicial
experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
When conducting initial review pursuant to § 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 pro se complaints may be merely conclusory. Even pro se
complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law.
Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912,
914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just
because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”). In addition,
affording a pro se complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that procedural
rules in ordinary 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).
Plaintiff names “United States Federal Government” as the sole defendant in this action.
For her claims for relief, plaintiff writes:
Give me all of my money back that was ever taken from me. For sending dirty
cops to ruin my life! I want all the credit card fraud gone and drugs off the
(Docket No. 1 at 4) (emphasis in original).
As relief, plaintiff writes that she wants “every dollar it owes me (every penny).” Id.1
To sue the United States, a plaintiff must demonstrate both a waiver of sovereign
immunity, and a grant of subject matter jurisdiction. V S Ltd. Partnership v. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 235 F.3d 1109, 112 (8th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has failed to so
The Court notes that the instant complaint borders on the malicious. The strenuous and disrespectful language
plaintiff has used, combined with her failure to allege any facts demonstrating entitlement to relief, gives the
impression that she may have filed this action in an attempt to shock and offend the Court and the defendant, rather
than in an honest attempt to vindicate a constitutional right.
demonstrate. In addition, plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and nonsensical. Even pro se
complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law,
Martin, 623 F.2d at 1286, and this Court will not assume facts that are not alleged simply
because doing so would form a stronger complaint. Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15. The complaint
will therefore be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Docket No.
3) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
Dated this 7th day of February, 2017.
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
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?