Flores v. United States Attorney General, et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding Complaint 1 . 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) (MKR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
GENERAL and FEDERAL BUREAU
Plaintiff Eric Flores filed his complaint (Filing No.
1) on April 8, 2015.
The Court granted him leave to proceed in
forma pauperis in this action.
The Court now conducts an initial
review of the complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is
appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The Court is required to review in forma pauperis
complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or
any portion of it 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
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual
allegations to “nudge their claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70
(2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“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.”).
Here, Flores filed a 67-page “Petition to Challenge the
Constitutionality of the First Amendment.”
CM/ECF p. 1.)
(Filing No. 1 at
He named the United States Attorney General and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation as the respondents.
to certify a class of Mexican-American citizens who are in
His allegations pertain to the actions of “an
organized group of executive employees of the federal
He alleged this group of federal employees “set
up their own court of common law” specifically established to
deprive him of his constitutional rights.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 10.)
He also alleged, among other things, that this group of federal
employees directed genetic-code altering satellite transmissions
from outer space at him, his family members, and other MexicanAmericans.
None of the events Flores described in his complaint
occurred in Nebraska.
The Court notes Flores has made identical or similar
filings in numerous other district courts across the country.
See, e.g., Flores v. United States Attorney General, No. 3:15-CV00217-RCJ, 2015 WL 3949090 (D. NV. June 29, 2015); Flores v.
United States Attorney General, No. CV 15-32-H-DLC-JTJ, 2015 WL
3650038 (D. MT June 11, 2015); Flores v. United States Attorney
General, Nos. 15-5026-JLV, 15-5028-JLV, 2015 WL 3644836 (W.D. SD.
June 10, 2015); Flores v. United States Attorney General, No. 1511359, 2015 WL 3407926 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2015).
The Court will dismiss Flores’s complaint because his
allegations are entirely baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or
See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-34 (1992)
(court may dismiss complaint of plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis as frivolous, and disregard clearly baseless, fanciful,
fantastic, or delusional factual allegations).
In addition, as a
pro se litigant, Flores may not represent the interests of other
Litschewski v. Dooley, No. 11-4105-RAL, 2012 WL
3023249, at *1 n. 1 (D.S.D. July 24, 2012), aff’d, 502 Fed. Appx.
630 (8th Cir. 2013).
Finally, the Court must dismiss Flores’s
complaint because venue in this district is not proper, as none
of the facts alleged in the complaint occurred in the District of
A separate order will be entered in accordance with
this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 13th day of July, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court
* This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products
they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with
any of these third parties or their Web sites. The Court accepts no
responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus,
the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other
site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
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?