Roy et al v. Time Warner Cable et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION that the Complaint 1 will be dismissed. A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA DR. KKK ROY, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) TIME WARNER CABLE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________)

4:09CV3262

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 22, 2009 (Filing No. 1). He has previously been given leave to proceed in The Court now conducts an initial

forma pauperis (Filing No. 5).

review of the complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT In plaintiff's complaint, he has sued various entities including the United States Government (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1). The allegations are impossible to decipher. The nearly-50

page complaint consists of, at best, nonsensical and illegible statements regarding politics, religion, plaintiff's family, the civil rights movement, and other issues. (Id.)1

Plaintiff has engaged in this behavior in federal courts throughout the United States. Roy v. Ass'n Formed in 2007, No. 08-00232, 2008 WL 2598199, *2 (D. Haw. June 30, 2008) (dismissing complaint consisting mostly of "49 pages of illegible handwritten notations" and a "rambling collection of documents and notes," and collecting cases showing plaintiff's numerous "malicious and frivolous" complaints).

1

II.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW The Court is required to review in forma pauperis

complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court must dismiss a complaint

or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. III. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS The Court has carefully reviewed the complaint. As set 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

forth above, plaintiff's allegations are difficult to decipher. The allegations which the Court can decipher do not set forth any specific actions taken by defendants which violate any constitutional right or support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997). In short,

plaintiff does not allege that defendants deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or that the alleged deprivation was committed under "color of state law." West, 487 U.S. at 48; Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. Even with the

most liberal construction, plaintiff's complaint does not include "sufficient facts to support the claims advanced," and is, at best, frivolous. Stringer v. St. James R-1 School Dist., 446 This matter will be dismissed. A

F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir. 2006).

-2-

separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. DATED this 17th day of February, 2010. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lyle E. Strom ______________________________ LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court

-3-