Davis v. Walmart Incorporated, et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS FRIVOLOUS; FURTHER ORDERED that The Clerk shall TAKE NECESSARY ACTION to return the filing fee to Plaintiff. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 9/15/2021. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-00474-GCM
ANDRE ANTONIO DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

WALMART INCORPORATED
WALMART STORE #5085
WALMART STORE #5298
WALMART HEADQUARTERS
WALMART STORE #1385,
Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on its own motion. Plaintiff filed a pro se
complaint on September 9, 2021 (ECF No. 1). The 96-page complaint, which raises 51 causes of
action, is largely incomprehensible. The plaintiff alleges that various Walmart stores were “using
their wireless systems to hack and embed a tracker in Mr. Davis’ phone,” in a “joint effort between
Walmart and the Intelligence Community, Infragard, Fbi and Cia.” ECF No. 1 at 4.
Frivolous complaints are subject to dismissal pursuant to the District Court’s inherent
authority, even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee. Smith v. Kagan, 616 F. App’x 90, 91 (4th
Cir. 2015) (per curiam); Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d
Cir. 2000) (per curiam). When allegations in a complaint are totally implausible, frivolous, or
devoid of merit, the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. See Apple v.
Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 478 (6th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases).
These claims are totally implausible and may be the product of delusion. For this reason,
the Court will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also notes

Case 3:21-cv-00474-GCM Document 4 Filed 09/15/21 Page 1 of 2

that Plaintiff has filed at least 17 other cases in the Western District of North Carolina which are
similarly incomprehensible. See, e.g., Davis v. Trump, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-00542; Davis v.
Amazon.com, Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-00125; Davis v. Alphabet Google, Civil Action No. 3:21cv-335.
The Court will direct the Clerk to return Plaintiff’s filing fee. Plaintiff is cautioned that if
he continues to file lawsuits containing fantastic claims, his filing fee may not be returned to him
and he may be subjected to a pre-filing review system. If such a system were imposed, all
documents submitted by Plaintiff in the future, whether in this case or in any other action filed in
this District, would be pre-screened by the Court for content. Any proposed filings not made in
good faith or which lack substance or merit would be returned to Plaintiff without further
explanation. See Vandyke v. Francis, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-128-RJC, 2012 WL 257646, at *2
(W.D.N.C. July 3, 2012).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. The
Clerk shall TAKE NECESSARY ACTION to return the filing fee to Plaintiff. The Clerk shall
PROVIDE A COPY to the Plaintiff. Finally, the Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: September 15, 2021

Case 3:21-cv-00474-GCM Document 4 Filed 09/15/21 Page 2 of 2