Le v. Vietnam National Oil Gas Group et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Minh Phat Le motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 5/30/17. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MINH PHAT LE,
Plaintiff,
v.
VIETNAM NATIONAL OIL GAS GROUP
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-1559 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action. The motion is
granted. Additionally, this action is dismissed.
Standard of Review
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, 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 draw on its judicial experience and
common sense. Id. at 679.

The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action against the Vietnam National Gas Group, Petro Vietnam, and
the China National Offshore Corporation. Plaintiff says he discovered the existence of these
companies on the internet. He took a polygraph exam about the existence of the companies, and
the results were inconclusive. Plaintiff wants the Court to declare that he is the owner of each of
these entities.
Discussion
The Court does not believe it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case. So, it
must be dismissed under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Moreover, the complaint is both factually and legally frivolous. A complaint is factually
frivolous when it is fanciful or delusional. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992).
An action is legally frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). The complaint must be dismissed for these reasons as well.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
Dated this 30th day of May, 2017.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2