Shores v. Miller et al

Filing 5

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [ECF No. 2 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint because the complaint is legally frivolous. An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 02/16/2018. (AAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CAMERON S. SHORES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY S. MILLER, TRISHA C.
STEFANSKI, NICHOLAS FORLER,
SHANNON R. DOUGHERTY, and
ANTONIA T. MANANSALA,
Defendants.

No. 4:18CV229 JMB

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Cameron S. Shores, an
inmate at Jefferson County Jail, for leave to commence this action without prepayment of the
filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Upon consideration of the financial information

provided with the motion, the Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any portion of
the filing fee. As a result, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the complaint and will dismiss it
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it is legally frivolous.
Legal Standard
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must 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). 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). 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).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action for “trespass and trespass on the case.” He alleges defendants
“have begun a simulated legal process under color of state law which has deprived [him] of his
rights to life, liberty, property.”

Plaintiff alleges a “State Trust created a legal estate in

[plaintiff], which acts as the nexus to bring actions against this individual as if he were a
corporation instead of a male human being.” Plaintiff also alleges defendants are committing
treason and an act of “mixed domestic war.” Plaintiff fired his court-appointed attorney in his
underlying criminal case, and alleges the State of Missouri has no jurisdiction over him. Finally,
plaintiff alleges Fourth Amendment violations arising out of a search of his home.
For relief, plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that defendants have no jurisdiction over
him, and that he is exempt from criminal charges. He seeks monetary damages of more than $26
million.
Discussion
Plaintiff cannot unilaterally bestow sovereign immunity upon himself. See United States
v. Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1984). Plaintiff’s purported status as “sui juris. Of his
own right; possessing full social and civil rights; not under any legal disability, or the power of
another, or guardianship.

Having capacity to manage one’s own affairs; not under legal

disability to act for one’s self” does not enable him to violate state or federal laws without
consequence. As a result, plaintiff’s allegations are legally frivolous. See United States v. Hart,

701 F.2d 749, 750 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); see also United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228,
233 n.1 (11th Cir. 2013).
Moreover, the Court notes that plaintiff has raised many of these arguments in his
pending criminal case, State v. Shores, No. 17JE-CR01327-01 (Jefferson County). On October
13, 2017, plaintiff filed in his criminal case a “Cause of Action—Lack of Jurisdiction, Trespass
and Trespass on the Case.” On January 9, 2018, plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter to all
judicial officers in Jefferson County Circuit Court stating that he is not a United States citizen
and that the court has no jurisdiction over him.
In Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court directed federal courts to abstain from hearing
cases where “the action complained of constitutes the basis of an ongoing state judicial
proceeding, the proceedings implicate important state interests, and an adequate opportunity
exists in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges.” Harmon v. City of Kansas
City, Mo., 197 F.3d 321, 325 (8th Cir. 1999); see also Fuller v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 959 (8th
Cir. 1996). While noting that plaintiff’s case is legally frivolous, the Court also concludes
abstention is warranted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. [ECF No. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to
issue upon the complaint because the complaint is legally frivolous.

An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 16th day of February, 2018

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE