Stephenson v. Hilton et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and ORDER: Magistrate Judge GRANTS 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, RECOMMENDS dismissing 3 Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 9/25/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 9/11/2017. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WILLIAM E. STEPHENSON,
Case No. 2:17-cv-779
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson
PARIS WHITNEY HILTON, et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
Plaintiff William E. Stephenson, an Ohio resident who is proceeding without the
assistance of counsel, brings this action against Paris Whitney Hilton, Onika Tanya Maraj
(publicly known as, “Nicki Minaj”), and two “unknown male friends.” (Doc. 1-1). This matter
is before the undersigned for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 1) and the initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. All judicial officers who
render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C . § 1915(a).
Furthermore, having performed an initial screen and for the reasons that follow, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss the Complaint,
or any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). “A claim is frivolous if it lacks ‘an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” Flores
v. U.S. Atty. Gen., No. 2:14-CV-84, 2014 WL 358460, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2014), (citing
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). This occurs when “indisputably meritless” legal
theories underlie the complaint, or when a complaint relies on “fantastic or delusional”
allegations. Id. (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327–28).
In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe it in Plaintiff’s favor, accept all wellpleaded factual allegations as true, and evaluate whether it contains “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
However, a court is not required to accept factual allegations set forth in a complaint as true
when such factual allegations are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325
F. App’x 427, 429–30 (6th Cir. 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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). In sum, although pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), “basic pleading essentials” are still required. Wells v. Brown, 891
F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff is no stranger to litigation in this Court. Including the present case, Plaintiff has
filed at least twelve cases pro se and in forma pauperis in this district in the last ten years. Of
these cases, six were dismissed at the screening stage for being frivolous, three were dismissed
upon screening for failure to state a claim for relief, one was dismissed following defendant’s
motion to dismiss as frivolous, and one Plaintiff dismissed. In short, Plaintiff has made a habit
of filing frivolous cases in this Court, and this case is no different.
The central allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint is that Defendants—who are described as
being “of celebrity status and within the entertainment industry”—engaged in sexual conduct
with Plaintiff, without his consent, at a residence in Canal Winchester, Ohio on an undisclosed
date. (Doc. 1-1 at 1–4). According to Plaintiff, “Defendant(s) did “impair the Plaintiff’s ability
to resist or consent against said sexual conduct” and used “means of deception.” (Id. at 3).
Plaintiff does not elaborate on what “means of deception” were used or how Defendants
prevented him from consenting or resting. Further, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant(s)” used
electronic recording devices to record the sexual activity, without Plaintiff’s consent, and
“released the video recordings via internet causing public disclosure of private facts and placed
false light upon Plaintiffs with sexual decisions.” (Id. at 4–5). Plaintiff seeks punitive damages
of $160 million, monetary damages of $60 million from each party, compensatory damages of
$11 million, and “aggravated damages” of $18 million. (Doc. 1-1 at 6).
Plaintiff’s allegations of rape by celebrities such as Paris Hilton and Nicki Minaj in Canal
Winchester, Ohio are the type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal under
§ 1915(e)(2) as frivolous. See Carter v. Mueller, No. CIV.A. 11 1366, 2011 WL 3267940, at *1
(D.D.C. July 27, 2011) (holding that allegations of rape against celebrities such as Oprah
Winfrey and President Obama constituted delusional scenarios warranting dismissal); Kimberly
v. Kardashian, No. 12-CV-1811, 2012 WL 3257857, at *2 (W.D. La. July 9, 2012) (dismissing
as frivolous a complaint against former presidential candidate Herman Cain and reality television
celebrities Kim and Kourtney Kardashian, holding that such allegations are “often seen in cases
filed by mentally ill plaintiffs who believe that entertainers and other celebrities are interacting
with them”); Romano v. Kardashian, No. CV 12-00109-M-DLC, 2012 WL 2503954, at *1 (D.
Mont. June 26, 2012) (dismissing a complaint as frivolous because it contained “implausible
accusations against a number of celebrities” that were “fantastic, delusional, irrational, and
frivolous”). These types of allegations “constitute the sort of patently insubstantial claims” that
deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Carter, 2011 WL 3267940, at *1.
Consequently, because Plaintiff’s allegations are premised on irrational allegations, the
undersigned finds Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief and it is recommended
that this action be dismissed as frivolous. See Flores v. U.S. Atty. Gen., No. 2:14-CV-84, 2014
WL 358460, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2014),
Further, in light of Plaintiff’s continued abuse of the court system and his in forma
pauperis status by filing frivolous lawsuits, Plaintiff is warned that his persistence in submitting
frivolous lawsuits may ultimately result in pre-filing restrictions. See Gyeye v. U.C. Health, No.
1:13-cv-673, at *13–14 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 6, 2014) (setting forth authority for imposing pre-filing
restrictions on vexatious litigators).
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
performed an initial screen and for the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the
Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint as frivolous.
Procedure on Objections to Report and Recommendation
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s).
A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 11, 2017
/s/Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?