Stokes v. Stevens

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [ECF No. 7 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $13.17 within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk, United States District Court," and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance i s for an original proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915( e )(2)(B). An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/4/2018. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
NEVEL YN STOKES,
Plaintiff,

v.
SENATOR STEVENS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-1958 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate at Farmington Correctional Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed plaintiffs financial
information, the Court assesses a partial initial filing fee of $13 .17, which is twenty percent of
his average monthly deposits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
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.
When reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court accepts the well-pled
facts as true. Furthermore, the Court liberally construes the allegations.
The Complaint

Plaintiffs complaint is difficult to comprehend and summarize, so the Court will quote it
in full. Plaintiff states the following as his claim:
When I was an inmate back in 2000 I entered the Ste. Gen. Co. Jail. I was tricked
there. Fooled about what was going on. I don't know not to don't call it a trick
because to me that's what was going on. All the officers I concluded in this case
was involved. Like to this day I still see and is going through the same stuff
today. What I mean about being tricked is I didn't understand what was going on
around me until now. I've been doing some research with some things and found
out that HAARP 1 or HART (which is now HART because Mr. Sen. Stevens and
King left HAARP in the South Georgia). I don't keep notes or time about what is
going on with some things because I feel I'll just remember them [illegible]. I
have a problem writing because this system I'm complaining about is trying to
read my mine or mind. I move a lot and write slow. The system I'm talking
about. Just to get into [illegible]. Is call AG' Caption code block. An old
computer system that does old numbers. It was a[n] old medieval scientist move
to trick or move the mine or even mind when I first stepped in Ste. Gen. come to
find out. I was being [tough]. I guess they thought they would get away with this
because my name and the racist slang word n[*****] was in the air. I could hear
from a distance not to[o] far that they was discussing me. The officers I
described. I also seen strange people around me like an FBI agent name Sean
Odaro. I couldn't use the rest room at times because it felt like my bowels was
locked and secreted. I couldn't get help from nothing because [nobody] knew
anything. My words would seem to come out wrong at them because I knew they
were using me. The only witness I ran into was nobody that wasn't with them.
When they plotted. I knew just about every black and white inmate in the jail
knew this problem. And it's been said that when they plan really took off they
took a lot of inmates with them. Even lifers inmates with a lot of time. I'm a
high [profiler] to[o] and they said to me through this system the only reason we
didn't select you is because you don't do what we do. I heard through this system
that these people have killed people and all. Kids and everything in a high

1

The Court believes plaintiff is referring to the "High Frequency Active Auroral Research
Program" jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, and the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency.
2

profiler and they said the only reason to why we don't like you is because you a
kid killer and [no one] would ever believe you again. You just about name it your
honor, that they could do to me after seeing this system. I've been done life. It
been called n[*****] every day in the mine. These people claim that the state and
other law officials gave them the permission to do this to me. I've been seeing
and hearing these people for eighteen years now and I believe this is a cruel and
unusual joke being played. I'm threatened every day by the system. If I
complained about this system or don't let them do tricks, I'm dead. And this
comes a lot from Mr. Senator Stevens and [illegible]. I heard that Mr. Senator
Stevens is an old Arizona senator from in the past. And that he found Mr. Senator
King in the mountains. I have a reason to be scared here with the state because it
happened to I know by state officials. I'm asking your honor for a chance to
appear in court and try to see if the courts would please issue a conditional
release. If we want to find out this all I have to do is to get the court to let me
confront the people I'm talking about. I'm asking to sue Mr. Senator Stevens, Mr.
Senator King, and Ste. Gen. Co. Jail. I'm asking for $2.5 billion dollars in
restitution. Please your honor.
Discussion

The Court finds that plaintiffs allegations are factually frivolous, and will dismiss the
complaint for this reason under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). "[A] court may dismiss a claim as
factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a category encompassing
allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33
(1992) (internal quotations and citations omitted). "As those words suggest, a finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Id.
As the Supreme Court has stated, district courts are "all too familiar" with these types of claims,
and are in the best position to determine which claims are factually frivolous. Id.
Reading the complaint as a whole, the Court cannot determine exactly what plaintiff is
attempting to allege. Plaintiff is suspicious of the system, presumably the corrections system,
and is making claims that it is tricking him. For example, plaintiff sees strange people around
him, including FBI agents. Plaintiff believes people are trying to read his mind, he is hearing

3

voices, and he is implicating unknown senators. He also complains about medieval science
techniques trying to trick or control his mind. The Court finds these claims clearly baseless and
subject to dismissal.
Additionally, plaintiffs allegations concern conduct that occurred in 2000 when he was
an inmate at the Ste. Genevieve County Jail.

"Although the statute of limitations is an

affirmative defense, a district court may properly dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915[] when it is apparent the statute of limitations has run." Myers v. Vogal, 960
F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir. 1992). Section 1983 claims are analogous to personal injury claims and
are subject to Missouri's five-year statute of limitations. Sulik v. Taney Cty., Mo., 393 F.3d 765,

..
.

.

766-67 (8th Cir. 2005); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4). Plaintiffs claims appear to be eighteen
years old, and are thus subject to dismissal under the statute of limitations.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will order this action dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. [ECF No. 7]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $13 .17
within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.

Plaintiff is instructed to make his

remittance payable to "Clerk, United States District Court," and to include upon it: (1) his name;
(2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the remittance is for an
original proceeding. 2

Prisoners must pay the full amount of the $350 filing fee. After payment of the initial partial
filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding
month's income credited to the prisoner's account. The agency having custody of the prisoner
2

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.

Dated this 4th day of January, 2018.

.ROSS
D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

will deduct the payments and forward them to the Court each time the amount in the account

exceeds $10. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
5