Perri v. Obama et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court dismisses the instant action without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. For purposes of in forma pauperis status on appeal, the Court certifies that no appeal would be taken in good faith. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 12/5/2011. (Fernandez, Erica)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------)[

NOT FOR PRINT OR
ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION

ANTHONY PERRI,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
-against11-CV-5214 (CBA)
BARRAK HUSSEIN OBAMA, President of the
United States of America; ERIC HIMPTON
HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States
of America; LORRETTA LYNCH, U.S.
Attorney of the Eastern District ofNew York;
ROBERT T. JOHNSON, District Attorney for
Broil)[ County New York,

r_;:::.:

,-: ( -:.::·
~ ~i

:-,~~---~- (':~·-"::,":·:

,

'· DEC 5... 2011

*

5noc:<LYN OFFICE

Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------------)[
AMON, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Anthony Perri filed this prose action on October 24, 2011. Plaintiff's request to
proceed in forma pauperis is granted. For the reasons that follow, the action is dismissed without
prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a frequent litigant in this Court. See Perri v. Bloomberg. eta!., No. 06 CV 403
(CBA), 2011 WL 2119331 (E.D.N.Y. May 27, 2011) (approving settlement and dismissing the
case); Perri v. Cardozo. eta!., No. 06 CV 2846 (ARR) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2006) (case dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state a claim on which relief could be
granted); Perri v. The United States District Court for the E.D.N.Y .. eta!., No. 07 CV 282 (ARR)
(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2007) (same); Perri v. Citv ofNew York. et al., No. 08 CV 451 (ARR), 2009
WL 3839317 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2009) (dismissed without prejudice, following appeal and
remand), affd, 382 Fed. App)[. 27, 2010 WL 2563404 (2d Cir. 2010); Perri v. Obama. eta!.,
Docket No. 10 CV 5038, 2010 WL 4961802 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2010) (dismissed without
prejudice); Perri v. Obama. et al., No. II CV 165 (ARR), 2011 WL 685826 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15,

2011) (dismissed without prejudice); Perri v. Obama. eta!., No. II CV 1359 (CBA)(E.D.N.Y.
Jun. 6, 2011) (dismissed without prejudice); Perri v. Bloomberg. eta!., No. II CV 2646
(CBA)(pending); Perri v. Kelly. eta!., No. II CV 3208 (dismissed without prejudice), 20 II WL
5024299 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 201l)(reconsideration denied).
Plaintiffs instant complaint alleges that the defendants used police officers and civilians,
including his current landlords and neighbors, to release toxic substances into his living quarters
and food, interfere with his medical treatment, and entrap him in criminal activity. (Complaint
~~

8-9, 12.) He states that Defendants Obama, Holder, & Lynch also threaten to kill him.

(Complaint~

13.) Plaintiff further alleges that the defendants' alleged harassment of him is part

of a vast conspiracy involving international and national security.

(Complaint~~

10-11.)

Plaintiff requests injunctive and declaratory relief, the appointment of pro bono counsel, and
$50 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

(Complaint~~

20-25.)

DISCUSSION

When a court finds the factual allegations in a complaint to be frivolous, it must dismiss
the action or claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is considered frivolous when
"either: (I) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product
of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory."
Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434,437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotations
and citations omitted).
Plaintiffs claims regarding the involvement of federal officials in a scheme to poison
him or entrap him in criminal activity using thousands of civilians are fantastic and incredible.
Faced with the these claims, and mindful of the need to conserve judicial resources, the Court
finds that no substantial claim could be asserted on plaintiffs behalf in this action.
The Court notes that it has considered whether it should appoint a guardian ad litem.

2

See Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care, 323 F.3d 196,201 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that a
district court should consider the appointment of a guardian when "presented with evidence
from an appropriate court of record or a relevant public agency indicating that the party had
been adjudicated incompetent, or if the court received verifiable evidence from a mental health
professional demonstrating that the party is being or has been treated for mental illness of the
type that would render him or her legally incompetent."). The Court was presented with
evidence of plaintiffs history of mental illness in his prior cases, and held a hearing in order to
determine whether plaintiff is competent to bring suit. The Court determined that a guardian ad
litem was necessary to protect plaintiff's interests in Perri v. Bloomberg, 06 CV 403 (CBA).
However, the Court finds that it need not appoint a guardian ad litem in this case, because the
Court has carefully reviewed plaintiffs instant complaint and finds that appointment of a
guardian ad litem in this proceeding would be futile, as it appears that no guardian could save
plaintiffs claims from dismissal. See Burke v. Coughlin, No. 86-CV-1174E (M), 1995 WL
350349 (W.D.N.Y. May 30, 1995) (declining to appoint a guardian ad litem where the action
was unlikely to continue).
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed, without prejudice, and without the
appointment of a guardian ad litem.

CONCLUSION
The Court dismisses the instant action without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed
to close this case. For purposes of in forma pauperis status on appeal, the Court certifies that no
appeal would be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see Coppedge v. United States,
369 u.s. 438, 444-45 (1962).

s/CBA

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
December 5', 2011

United State

3