WALTERS v. ASTRUE et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 10/24/2013; that Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket Entry 1 ) is GRANTED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE COURT TO CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL. RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous. (Garland, Leah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHRIS WALTERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ASTRUE,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:12CV624
MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket Entry 1), filed in
conjunction with Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (Docket Entry 2).
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s
Application to proceed as a pauper solely for the purpose of
allowing consideration of a recommendation of dismissal.1
LEGAL BACKGROUND
“The federal in forma pauperis statute, first enacted in 1892
[and now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915], is intended to guarantee
that no citizen shall be denied access to the courts ‘solely
because his poverty makes it impossible for him to pay or secure
1
Plaintiff’s Application acknowledges recurring monthly
income (see Docket Entry 1 at 2) and reports no recurring monthly
expenses (see id. at 3).
Accordingly, Plaintiff may have the
capacity to pay the filing fee; however, given the recommendation
of dismissal, no need exists to explore that matter further.
the costs.’”
Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 953
(4th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours
& Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342 (1948)).
“Dispensing with filing fees,
however, [is] not without its problems.
the statute
d[o]
not face
ordinary litigants.
the
same
Parties proceeding under
financial
constraints
as
In particular, litigants suing in forma
pauperis d[o] not need to balance the prospects of successfully
obtaining relief against the administrative costs of bringing
suit.”
Nagy v. Federal Med. Ctr. Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 255 (4th
Cir. 2004). To address this concern, the in forma pauperis statute
provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that – . . . (B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous
. . . .”
The
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
United
States
Supreme
Court
has
explained
that
“a
complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal
conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
“The word ‘frivolous’ is inherently elastic and not susceptible to
categorical definition. . . .
The term’s capaciousness directs
lower courts to conduct a flexible analysis, in light of the
totality of the circumstances, of all factors bearing upon the
frivolity of a claim.”
Nagy, 376 F.3d at 256-57 (some internal
quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court further has identified
factually frivolous complaints as ones involving “allegations that
2
are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.
As those words suggest,
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,
32-33 (1992) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
In
considering such matters, this Court may “apply common sense.”
Nasim, 64 F.3d at 954.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
The caption of Plaintiff’s Complaint (which actually bears the
heading “Amicus Brief Questions Constitutionality of the Social
Security Act and Medicaid”) identifies as Defendants (or, by its
terms, “Respondents”) the now-former Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration, as well as two United States Senators and
the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate. (Docket Entry
2
at 1.)
Under
the
sub-heading “Jurisdictional
Statement
&
Established Case Law,” the Complaint asserts, in relevant part,
that:
1) “a US District Court [possesses] jurisdiction for actions
at bar where the Constitutionality of Acts of Congress have been
brought into question” (id.);
2) “established law from 11 previous federal Judges and 3 US
Circuit Courts of Appeals is that no further modification of
[Plaintiff’s] SSI claim or benefits can be made under Title 42
3
Chapter 7 Social Security Act without the matter being reviewed in
a USDC pursuant to Title 42 USC 405(g)(H) Judicial Review” (id.
(emphasis in original));2
3) “the Commissioner has indicated by written letter his
intention of asking for a hearing in several years and the 3 US
District Court Judges Collyer, Leon, and Friedman are assigned to
the case in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia Civil 09-0956” (id.);3
4) “the United States Supreme Court has ruled that parties
such [a]s [Plaintiff] are entitled to attend hearings as a matter
of due process” (id.); and
5) “US Supreme Court Ruling Theresa Schiavo-Schindler, et al.
v. Michael Schiavo, et al. protects the rights of patients to
choose their medical treatment over the objection of medical or
government officials” (id. at 2 (emphasis in original)).
2
On this point, the Complaint refers to “Exhibit A.” (See
Docket Entry 2 at 1.)
The Complaint, in fact, does contain a
“Plaintiff Exhibit A Orders of Several US Courts,” which appears to
refer to rulings by the United States Supreme Court and the United
States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Tenth, and District of
Columbia Circuits in four cases Plaintiff instituted against the
Social Security Administration. (See id. at 5.)
3
That case number corresponds to a case in which “Plaintiff
ask[ed] th[e] [c]ourt ‘to consider whether the Social Security
Commissioners and other third parties [sic] ongoing questions
violated Title 18 USC 402 Contempt,’” Walters v. Astrue, Civil
Action No. 09 0956, 2009 WL 1438238, at *1 (D.D.C. May 21, 2009)
(unpublished) (Collyer, J.) (quoting Plaintiff’s complaint
therein), aff’d, 575 F.3d 724 (D.C. Cir. 2009), which case that
court “dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” id.
4
Under the sub-heading “Cause of Action US Inability To Govern
Creates Challenges to The Constitutionality of the Social Security
Act & Medicaid” (id.), the Complaints states, as appears pertinent,
the following:
1) “11 US Judges and 3 US Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled
that the only place Questions, changes, or modification of benefits
concerning [Plaintiff’s] SSI claim can be considered is when the
Commissioner of Social Security files a timely action pursuant to
Title 42 USC 405(g)(H) Judicial Review” (id. (emphasis in original)
(citing Ex. A));
2) Plaintiff “made a timely request for Medicaid benefits on
Guilford County along with Social Security Awards letters and as in
2009 Guilford County has declined to either issue the required
benefits or communicate a reply” (id.);
3) “[a]lthough [Plaintiff] has no right to otherwise vend,
dispense, or practice law in SSI law over the last 20 years we have
many public and private interest attempting to question the rule of
law who have generated hundreds of megabytes of data over the last
20 years as cited in the Exhibit C the CD Rom submitted as Evidence
and Testimony to Congress Exhibit B” (id.);4
4
The Complaint does have a “Plaintiff Exhibit C,” which
consists of a copy of a letter from Plaintiff to “Guilford County
Department Social Services” seeking “reissu[ance] [of his] Medicaid
Card” (Docket Entry 2 at 6) and a letter Plaintiff purportedly
received from the Social Security Administration regarding his
entitlement to certain benefits (id.). Plaintiff also appended to
the Complaint an “Exhibit B,” which appears to consist of a copy of
5
4) “since 2007 [Plaintiff] has expended an estimated $70,000
responding to 3rd party questions which the Courts have repeatedly
ruled have no basis in US law” (id.);
5) “[a]side from massive violations of Title 18 USC 1509
Obstruction of Court ORDERS and violations of Title 18 USC 402
Contempt the various 3rd parties have demanded [Plaintiff] a person
with cancer ‘slap a cop to get food stamps’; called across sections
of the US asking to have [Plaintiff] denied treatment for cancer;
denied treatment for blood clots; and other ailments and committed
other actions which easily violate the United Nations Treaties on
Human Rights and Genocide” (id. at 2-3 (emphasis in original));
6) “it appears that some of the 3rd parties involved are
attempting to create precedents or challenges to Title 42 USC
Chapter 7 Social Security Act so as to diminish the authority of
a letter from Plaintiff to a now-former Chief of Staff for the
President and to a United States Senator, regarding Social Security
and Medicaid, as well as purported documentation of Federal
Express, United States Mail, or facsimile deliveries to numerous
government officials. (Id. at 7.) Finally, Plaintiff submitted
with the Complaint a CD-ROM; according to its cover, Plaintiff
“[a]uthor[ed]” the CD-ROM and it “contains operational audits and
surveys of programs operated by the US Department of HUD; Social
Security Administration; Homeland Security; from 1986-2012 which
was [sic] used in the creation of 3 federal statutes.” (Id. at 9.)
Portions of the Complaint apparently cite to files on the CD-ROM,
which purportedly address, inter alia, “US law,” “Denial of Medical
Benefits & Abuse of Social Security,” “Abuse of power,” “US
political patronage systems,” “Genocide at US Department of HUD,”
the “Homeless Act” and “Non Profit Law,” as well as “inadequate
administration of justice or lack of leadership in the 4th US
Circuit Court of Appeals and USDC, MDC.” (See id. at 2-5.)
6
the Social Security Commissioner in favor of state’s rights” (id.
at 3);
7) “many of the apparent violations of International Law at
Bar appear to occur in and around the US political patronage
systems where for instance we have political interest currently
spending $8 Billon [sic] the [2012] presidential race” (id.); and
8) “extensive service of process has been provided to the US
Congress to address the questions at bar” (id. (citing Ex. B)).
Next,
under
the
respective
sub-headings
“Question
of
Constitutionality of the Social Security Act & Medicaid” and
“Question of Constitutionality of Title 42 USC 11301 Homeless Act
& Title 26 USC 503c(3) Aka Non Profit Law,” the Complaint alleges:
Baring [sic] miscommunications, inadvertence, or accident
on the part of Guilford County Department of Social
Services the refusal to issue Medicaid Benefits is pretty
much another slap in the face to every Federal Judge in
3 US Circuit Courts of Appeals who have ruled in the
family of cases Walters V Asture.
The Court and
Honorable Members of Congress are asked to consider that
ongoing and routine challenges to the rule of law void
the legality of the Social Security by denying
[Plaintiff] the equal protection of the law. As a mere
client of the Social Security Administration [Plaintiff]
is not required to take time and limited resources away
from serious medical problems to resolve ongoing problems
with
the Administration
of
the Social
Security
Administration.
. . . .
The Court and Honorable members of the US Senate are
asked to noted [sic] a large number of the events
involving unlawful communication to [Plaintiff] or
tampering originate with various vendors of The US
Department of HUD seeking to sell low income housing.
Neither the Secretary of HUD nor any of his numerous
7
representatives are named as parties of record in any
action of law styled Walter V Asture or SSA. Lacking any
standing to vend, dispense, or practice law in these
venues the Court is asked to void the Homeless Act and
Non profit Statute as being in conflict with Federal
Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure and due and equal
protection of the laws of the United States. The Court
is also asked to note recommendation to the Office of
International Prosecutor to prosecute any Officer, Agent,
or representative of the United States engaged in
compelling a citizen to move as an act of Genocide[.]
(Id. at 4.)
Finally, under the sub-heading “Discussion Impeachment of
Judges in US District Court, MDC and 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals
and Proposed Restructuring of the Courts,” the Complaint declares:
[T]he inadequate administration of justice or lack of
leadership in the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals and
USDC, MDC has resulted in misuse of various state and
federal programs for Genocide; challenges to Smith v
Bounds as a question of prisoners [sic] rights to
counsel; enough serial stalking of [Plaintiff] so as to
help write the Antispyware Act of 2005; aided the
terrorist who attacked the World Trade Center to create
a long term base of operations in the Triad; interception
of ORDERS Of US Circuit Courts of Appeals and other
matters outside the bounds of United States Law. The US
Senate Committee on the Judiciary might agree that the
Middle District of North Carolina more closely resembles
a 3rd world banana republic than a State in the United
States. The restricting of the US District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina and the 4th US Circuit
Court of Appeals might proceed on the basis of returning
these jurisdictions to the firm and complete control of
the United States. As an alternate to Impeach of [sic]
retirement of Judges it might be suggest [sic] some
jurist might be reassigned to Other US District Courts
where they [sic] might serve in a more effective
capacity.
(Id. at 4-5.)
8
DISCUSSION
Another federal court recently took note that “[a] review of
the Pacer database indicates that [Plaintiff] has filed over 50
frivolous complaints and appeals, mostly involving the Social
Security Administration (‘SSA’), Congressmen, and the homeless
shelters or charitable/medical facilities in which he stays, in
[various] Districts across the United States.”
Walters v. Colvin,
No. 13cv247 JAP/GBW, at 3 (D.N.M. Apr. 11, 2013) (unpublished),
aff’d, ___ F. App’x ___, 2013 WL 3988563 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2013).
Said court further documented that “federal courts have expended
extensive judicial resources explaining to [Plaintiff] why his
complaints are frivolous.”
Id. at 4 (citing, for example, cases
from federal courts in Montana, New York, Washington, Idaho, and
Florida).
it, as
in
Moreover, said court observed that, in the case before
previous
cases,
Plaintiff
proceeded
based
on
“the
misapprehension that [said] [c]ourt [had] rendered a decision on
the merits of his case [against the Social Security Administration]
. . . .
[However, said] [c]ourt has never determined whether
[Plaintiff] has the right to any social-security benefits.” Id. at
5 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Finally, said
court stated that Plaintiff’s filings therein included “several
delusional
statements
.
.
.
[and]
cognizable cause of action . . . .”
wholly
failed
Id. at 5-6.
state
a
As a result, it
“dismiss[ed] [Plaintiff’s] complaint as frivolous.”
9
to
Id. at 6; see
also id. at 7 (ordering Plaintiff to “show cause . . . why he
should not be sanctioned by the imposition of filing restrictions
to stop his abusive behavior of filing frivolous complaints and
other documents”); Walters v. Colvin, No. 13cv247 JAP/GBW (D.N.M.
May 1, 2013) (unpublished) (imposing such filing restrictions).
As detailed in the preceding subsection, the Complaint filed
by Plaintiff in this case suffers from the same sort of flaws as
did his filings in federal court in New Mexico (and elsewhere).
Accordingly, in the words of another federal court that recently
confronted
a
similarly
“disorganized”
pleading
by
Plaintiff
featuring “incomprehensible allegations,” Walters v. Leahy, No. CV
12-184-M-DLC-JCL, 2013 WL 66926, at *1 (D. Mont. Jan. 4, 2013)
(unpublished), Plaintiff’s instant Complaint is
“frivolous” as that term is defined above [in the Legal
Background subsection].
The . . . summary of
[Plaintiff’s] allegations presented above [in the
immediately preceding subsection] reflect[s] that his
claims are fanciful, delusional, or fantastic.
His
allegations present irrational and illogical claims which
fail to provide any comprehensible factual basis and,
therefore, are wholly incredible.
He presents no
plausible underlying factual basis for his conclusory
factual assertions . . . .
Consequently, . . . this
action is subject to dismissal.
Id. at *3; see also Seymour v. United States Dep’t of Defense, No.
10CV983JLS(JMA), 2011 WL 761547, at *4 n.5 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 24,
2011)
(unpublished)
(citing
numerous
cases
in
support
of
proposition that “[i]nsubstantial and frivolous conspiracy theory
10
claims like Plaintiff’s are routinely dismissed as frivolous”
(internal brackets and quotation marks omitted)).5
CONCLUSION
“[A]pply[ing] common sense,” Nasim, 64 F.3d at 954, the
undersigned Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint
depends entirely on “allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and
delusional . . . [and which] rise to the level of the irrational or
the
wholly
incredible,”
Denton,
504
U.S.
at
32-33
(internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Leave
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket Entry 1) is GRANTED FOR THE
LIMITED PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE COURT TO CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION
OF DISMISSAL.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous.
/s/ L. Patrick Auld
L. Patrick Auld
United States Magistrate Judge
October 24, 2013
5
Shortly after instituting this action, Plaintiff filed a
Notice in which he stated that, due to his inability to secure
Medicaid benefits in North Carolina, “a move to another venue seems
the best option.”
(Docket Entry 4 at 2.)
In light of the
recommendation of dismissal, the Court need not consider the
propriety of transfer.
11
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?