Spells v. Obama
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Pltff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted solely for the purpose of this order. The complaint is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court declines to allow pltff an opportunity to amend as there is no reason to think a valid claim might be stated. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. (Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 6/26/12) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F~I-l---E--D-- \~')I
~~
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
KEVIN SPELLS,
.
.
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
Plamtlfl;l DISTRICT COURT E. D. N.Y.
*
-againstBARACK H. OBAMA,
JUL 10 2012
*
EMORANDUM
AND ORDER
12 CV 3046 (ENV)
BROOKLYN OFFICE
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------)(
•
VITALIANO, United States District Judge:
On June 14, 2012, plaintiff Kevin Spells filed this prose action seeking damages from
President Obama. 1 Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 solely for the purpose of this order. The complaint is dismissed as set forth below.
Standard of Review
In reviewing the complaint, the Court is aware that plaintiff is proceeding pro se and that "a
pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted).
Nonetheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2){B), a district court shall dismiss an in forma
pauperis action where it is satisfied that the action is "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief." An action is "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 citation omitted).
1
This is plaintiff's fifth action in this district, each of which has been dismissed. See Spells v.
City of New York, No. 06 CV 3448 (ENV); Spells v. City of New York, No. 07 CV 5038 (ENV); Spells v.
Vitaliano, No. 09 CV 1589 (RRM) and Spells v. Mauskopf, No. 09 CV 1942 (DLI).
Discussion
The Supreme Court has observed that a "finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when
the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are
judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33
(1992). Plaintiff alleges that
on or around March 12, 2012, to June 13, 2012, either in, at, or
around the oval office of the White House at, 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, Washington, DC, 20500, President Barack H. Obama (herein
now know as Mr. Obama) unjustly discriminated with acts well
beyond his presidential capacity, done in total omission and failure in
"bad faith." *** By refusing to "overturn two unconstitutional final
orders from the Supreme Court of the United States" with the
petitioner named in that matter, as being the present plaintiff, who
had (illogically) never went to trial before within that same (U.S.
Supreme Court) matter. Compl. at~ 3, p.2-3.
Plaintiff also attaches, inter alia, an FBI complaint form, several letters providing President Obama
notice of plaintiffs intent to sue, and copies of orders from the Supreme Court denying plaintiffs
petitions for certiorari. Compl., Exhibits A-El. It appears that plaintiff seeks damages from
President Obama for failing to "overturn" Supreme Court decisions denying plaintiffs applications
for certiorari. Construing plaintiffs complaint as raising the strongest arguments it suggests, the
Court finds that plaintiffs allegations are irrational and that there are no legal theories on which he
may rely.Z Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437 (observing that dismissal is proper where allegations are
"product of delusion or fantasy" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
As this is plaintiffs fifth action filed in this district, including two in which he sued federal
judges for acts performed in their judicial capacities, he is warned that ifhe continues to file similar
2
Even if plaintiffs claims were not frivolous, the complaint would still fail because
President Obama has absolute immunity for civil damage actions arising out of the execution of his
duties. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald. 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982).
2
complaints, an order may issue enjoining him from filing such actions without first obtaining leave
to file. See Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000) ("The district courts have the power
and obligation to protect the public and the efficient administration of justice from individuals who
have a history oflitigation entailing vexation, harassment and needless expense to other parties and
an unnecessary burden on the courts and their supporting personnel." (internal quotations and
citations omitted)); Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207,208 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (district court
may enjoin parties from filing further lawsuits upon notice and an opportunity to be heard); see also
Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2005); 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
Conclusion
Accordingly, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court declines to allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend as there
is no reason to think a valid claim might be stated. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d
Cir. 2000). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be
taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
June 26, 2012
----:E~RI::::C:::=::::N-:::----_:;:::.
V::::I:::oTAliANO
United States District Judge
3
--
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?