Miller v. Busch Jr.

Filing 6

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. A separate Order of Dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF 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 Henry Edward Autrey on 11/14/2023. (HMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MATTHEW W. MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BILLY BUSCH, JR.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:23-CV-1138 SRW

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Matthew Miller’s submission
of a civil complaint and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon consideration of the
motion and the financial information provided therein, the Court concludes that plaintiff is unable
to pay the filing fee. The motion will therefore be granted. Additionally, as explained below, the
Court finds that the complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and will therefore dismiss this action at this time pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Legal Standard
This Court is required to review a complaint filed in forma pauperis to determine whether
summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This Court must dismiss a complaint
or any portion of it that, inter alia, is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law
or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). The term “‘frivolous,’ when applied to a
complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual
allegation.” Id. While federal courts should not dismiss an action commenced in forma pauperis if
the facts alleged are merely unlikely, the court can properly dismiss such an action if the allegations
in the complaint are found to be “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33

(1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. 319). Allegations are clearly baseless if they are “fanciful,”
“fantastic,” or “delusional,” or if they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.”
Id. An action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 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).
This Court liberally construes complaints filed by laypeople. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976). “Liberal construction” means that “if the essence of an allegation is discernible,”
the court should “construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be
considered within the proper legal framework.” Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir.
2015) (quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)). However, even pro se
complaints must allege facts that, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v.
Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). Federal courts are not required to assume facts
that are not alleged, Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15, nor are they required to interpret procedural rules
so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508
U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
The Complaint
The complaint is handwritten on a Court-provided form. Plaintiff brings this action against
Billy Busch, Jr., the founder of the William K. Busch Brewing Company, which produces beers
such as Kraftig Lager and Kraftig Light.
Under the section of the complaint titled, “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff states that he has
been subjected to “racketeering and assault” as well as 400-500 concussions. He states:
The defendant has used my life, my marriage, my livelihood to take for himself and
profit from prostitution. He has struck me from behind in the head between four
and five hundred times. He has drugged me about forty times. Thrown me from
buildings of multiple heights and from different buildings. Paid people to keep me
2

from succeeding and to make me not liked for many different reasons, in many
different ways. He has also sexually assaulted my child.
In the “Civil Cover Sheet,” plaintiff identifies the causes of action as “treason” and
“racketeering.” In the section of the form complaint provided for plaintiff to list the specific federal
statutes or constitutional provisions at issue in this case, he wrote, “treason, impairing, extorsion,
embezzlement, racketeering.”
Although plaintiff has not indicated that he is bringing an action under this Court’s
diversity jurisdiction, in the section of the form complaint provided for plaintiff to identify the
amount in controversy, he filled in: “I am being played out of my livelyhood. [sic] The amounts
being used and collected are huge. 100 trillion.” 1
Under the section of the complaint titled, “Relief,” plaintiff states that he wants “a massive
amount of money from the defendant.” Additionally, he “not wants to be harassed or intruded
upon.”
Discussion
Despite having carefully reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, the Court cannot
discern plaintiff’s claims against defendant Billy Busch, Jr., or how defendant has allegedly acted
against him in an unlawful manner. Rather, plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a cohesive claim for
relief.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to formulate their pleadings in an
organized and comprehensible manner. Even pro se plaintiffs are required to set out their claims
and the supporting facts in a simple, concise, and direct manner. See McNeil v. United States, 508
U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Here, plaintiff has not done so. While this Court must liberally construe pro

In a supplement filed on October 6, 2023, plaintiff asked that this number be changed to “ten centrillion.”
[sic].

1

3

se filings, this Court will not construct claims or assume facts that plaintiff has not alleged. See
Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15 (refusing to supply additional facts or to construct a legal theory for the
pro se plaintiff that assumed facts that had not been pleaded). Additionally, plaintiff’s allegations
are nonsensical, and indeed “rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible.” Denton, 504
U.S. at 33. The Court therefore finds that plaintiff’s allegations are clearly baseless as defined in
Denton. The Court will therefore dismiss this action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
[ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. A separate Order of
Dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF
No. 3] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 14th day of November, 2023.

HENRY EDWARD AUTRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4