Rossmann v. Dimon et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Complaint, Filing No. 1 , is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Filing No. 2 , is denied. The court will enter judgment by aseparate document. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KMG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BRUD "ANTI ANTI CHRIST" 1
ROSSMANN, Esquire, Otherwise
pleading as the "Anti Anti Christ";

8:18CV5

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

vs.
JAMIE DIMON, CEO, Chair JP Morgan
Chase; WARREN BUFFETT, CEO,
Chair Berkshire Hathaway; RYAN
SCHNEIDER, Realogy; DONALD
TRUMP, The President of the United
States, The White House; IVANKA
TRUMP, One of Trump's Closest
Advisers, The White House;
ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, JOHN
DOE-1, JOHN DOE-2, and JOHN DOE3,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Brud Rossmann’s (“Rossmann”)
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (filing no. 2) and his pro se civil complaint
(filing no. 1). For the reasons stated below, Rossman’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (filing no. 2) is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice.
On January 4, 2018, Rossmann, a non-prisoner pro se litigant who represents
that he graduated from Harvard Law School and was a federal prosecutor, filed a
complaint against Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase; Warren Buffett, CEO
of Berkshire Hathaway; Ryan Schneider; President Donald Trump; Ivanka Trump;
Anthony Scaramucci; and three unidentified John Does. Rossmann refers to
himself as the “Anti Anti Christ,” a name he alleges “the Jew, Jay Rappaport, then

President of America Online,” coined for Rossmann. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF
p.1.) 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 such relief. 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
dismissed.” 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.”).
At most, the court only can decipher certain themes contained within the
generally rambling and incomprehensible allegations of Rossmann’s Complaint.
Specifically, the Complaint espouses Rossmann’s professed intellectual
capabilities, educational background, and work experience; his history of filing
numerous actions in federal court1 and claims with federal agencies; his belief that
he has been the target of torture, attempted murder, financial ruin, “infrasonic
weaponry platforms,” and other abuse by defendants; and his hatred for “the
human scum defining the Defendants, . . . the Court, the reviewing Judge in this
instance, . . . [and] each and every one of you.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp.5–7,
21.) In his prayer for relief, Rossmann seeks $10,000,000.00 in compensatory
damages and “[i]njunctive relief . . . to include the joy, the privilege, of K9ooling
1

A search of PACER indicates that Rossmann has filed at least 100 civil actions in
federal district courts throughout the country.

2

certain natural persons with a Kn9ffe, [and] gut999ting them in public.” (Id. at
CM/ECF pp.30–31.)
Rossmann has not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 which
requires that every complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and that “each allegation . . . be
simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). Moreover, the
Complaint’s allegations are entirely baseless. 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); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (a
complaint is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact).
Accordingly, the court will dismiss this action as frivolous and with prejudice as
the defects in the Complaint cannot be remedied through more specific pleading.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
frivolous.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (filing no. 1) is dismissed with prejudice as

2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (filing no.
2) is denied.
3.

The court will enter judgment by a separate document.

Dated this 22nd day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

3