Bolar v. Gateway 180 of St. Louis, Missouri et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [ECF No. 2] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).IT IS FURTHER ORDERRED that plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint is DENIED as moot. [ECF No. 4]. An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.} Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 2/9/2018. (JMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SHEILA M. BOLAR
GATEWAY 180 OF ST. LOUIS,
MISSOURI, et al.
No. 4:18-CV-49 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action. Based on the
information provided in plaintiff’s financial affidavit, the motion will be granted. On initial
review, however, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s case without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §
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.
Plaintiff sues more than thirty defendants, alleging violations of her constitutional and
statutory rights. Included as defendants are the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, the
City of St. Louis, St. Louis Sherriff’s Office, Omaha Police Department, Douglas County
Sheriff’s Office, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Air Force, Air
Force Office of Special Investigations, St. Louis Fire Department, FBI, Western Union, Walmart
Incorporated, Money Gram Incorporated, PayPal Incorporated, Google Incorporated, T-Mobile
Incorporated, Spring Incorporated, and Does 1-100.
Plaintiff claims defendants have violated her
civil, constitutional, and other statutory rights in an ongoing racketeering scheme
and criminal conspiracy, of which plaintiff is a crime victim and complaining
witness, which has its origins in New York City, but has crossed the state lines of
multiple U.S. States (including but not limited to the State of Missouri) and
multiple national boundaries of multiple foreign countries, involving tens of
billions of dollars, for which there has already been more than one related federal
criminal trial, in New York and in other U.S. States.
In various parts of her twenty-page complaint, plaintiff alleges she was travelling by
Greyhound bus from Omaha, Nebraska to St. Louis, Missouri. At some point she entered the
emergency room of Barnes-Jewish Hospital, where she was robbed of $968. As a result of the
theft, she sought shelter at defendant Gateway 180 homeless shelter. She claims several people,
including her biological sisters and a New York Assemblyman have stolen copyrights to her
intellectual property, including poems, prose, apparel designs, textile surface digital art, digital
designs, patent applications for anti-electronic warfare, trade secrets, etc. She also implicates the
Italian and Russian mafia in an alleged criminal conspiracy.
For relief, plaintiff seeks an injunction and declaratory judgment, and anticipates filing a
separate civil action for damages.
Having carefully reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, the Court has concluded
that it is factually frivolous under Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). An action is
factually frivolous if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless.” Allegations are clearly baseless if
they are “fanciful,” “delusional,” or “fantastic.” Id. “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. at 33.
The Court finds plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and without merit, and should be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. [ECF No. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERRED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint
is DENIED as moot. [ECF No. 4]
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2018.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
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?