Farmer v. Internet et al

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne : This action is frivolous and that plaintiff fails to state a claim in which relief can be granted. Therefore, this action is dismissed with prejudice. Denying 2 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ; denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241/2254) (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

RODNEY EUGENE FARMER,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
INTERNET (regular and police),
)
JUST BUSTED PAPER AND D.O.C.
)
)
Defendants. )

Case No. 13-CIV-259-JHP-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. # 1) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment
of Counsel. On June 19, 2013, this case was converted to a civil rights complaint (Dkt. # 4),
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The problem, however, is even construing Plaintiff’s allegations
liberally, pursuant to Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), the
Complaint fails to allege any facts sufficient to support a civil rights cause of action against any
specific individual. Additionally, the Complaint does not allege any jurisdictional facts which
would support this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the complaint does not even come
close to supporting a claim for defamation. The letter attached to said complaint is incoherent
babble about things that plaintiff claims have been said on the internet about him, his “ex wife . . .
common law,” and her daughter, including an alleged due process violation in the summer of 1997.
Plaintiff’s letter also talks about illegal representation which he received and illegal sentences given
to him in 1996. The letter also talks about a claim for defamation although it is not clear who
actually engaged in the defamatory allegations. The letter also states D.O.C. likes to send him things
thru the mail which has resulted in the post office knowing about his health.

On August 28, 2013, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was
ordered to pay an initial partial filing fee of $10.59 within twenty (20) days. To date, Plaintiff has
not complied with this Court’s order.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is required to dismiss an action if it is (1)
frivolous or (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. While sua sponte dismissals
are generally disfavored, where the complaint is “clearly baseless” dismissal is warranted. Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1108-1109 (10th Cir. 1991). The allegations in the complaint do not create
a claim upon which this lawsuit can proceed. Accordingly, this Court finds Plaintiff’s action is
frivolous and that Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Therefore, this
action is dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
is denied. Furthermore, this dismissal shall be entered as a “STRIKE,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g).
It is so ordered on this 24th day of September, 2013.

2