Gibson v. President of the United States
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) (eo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Martin C. Carlson
August 1, 2013
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 5), filed July 15,
2013, recommending that we grant the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 2), but ultimately dismiss the complaint as frivolous.
Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on July 26, 2013. (Doc. 6). Accordingly, this
matter is ripe for our review. For the reasons set forth below, the R&R shall be
adopted in its entirety.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections are filed to the report of a magistrate judge, the district
court makes a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674-75 (1980). The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations. Id. Although the standard of review is de novo, 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) permits whatever reliance the district court, in the exercise of sound
discretion, chooses to place on a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations. Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 674-75; see also Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 275 (1976); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984). The Court’s
examination of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge’s determinations.
Pro se Plaintiff Jeffrey Gibson filed this matter (Doc. 1) and a Motion for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on July 12, 2013. (Doc.2). Within his
pleading, Plaintiff claims the President of the United States has misused the power
of his office through various presidential orders. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks an order
on behalf of himself “invoking U.S. constitutional martial status,” and issuance of
a “Declaration of Independence Citizen Warrant.”1 Id. For the reasons that follow,
we shall adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Plaintiff’s motion
Constitutional Marshal Status is unknown in the laws of the United States, though it has
been raised by Plaintiff Gibson in many of the 28 actions filed by Gibson in federal court. (Doc.
5, pages 1-2). A Declaration of Independence Citizen Warrant is similarly absent from such
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be granted, (Doc. 5), however, the
complaint shall be dismissed as frivolous.
We are obligated to review pro se complaints brought by plaintiffs given
leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. Under §1915A,
the court shall dismiss the complaint if it is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted”. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1). The statutory
text of §1915A echoes Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6), which
states that a complaint should be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To bring a legally sufficient
complaint, a plaintiff must show, based on factual allegations accepted to be true,
that he is plausibly entitled to relief, through a “short and plain” statement of a
cause of action. See Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007);
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Factual
allegations must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above a speculative level;
conclusions, labels and a bare recitation of the elements is insufficient. Twombly, at
The Magistrate Judge provides a thorough discussion of the Standard of Review applied
to 28 U.S.C. §1915A, Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 8(a) at pages 2 to 6 of his report. Thus we have
only highlighted the Rule’s threshold requirements herein.
Plaintiff’s claim fails here for a variety of reasons, each independently
sufficient to dismiss the complaint. A complaint is subject to dismissal if the cause
of action is reliant on “fantastical or delusional scenarios.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); DeGrazia v. F.B.I., 316 F. App’x 172, 173 (3d Cir.
2009). Plaintiff’s invocation of “constitutional marshal status” and his sought
relief of a “Declaration of Independence Citizen Warrant” are quite obviously
grounded more in the fantasy than reality. (Doc.1). Plaintiff’s complaint must
additionally be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Plaintiff’s allegations are “so attenuated and
unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,...wholly insubstantial,...obviously
frivolous..” and must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). Hagans v. Lavine, 415
U.S. 528, 536-38 (1974). Finally, Plaintiff’s complaint does not meet the
touchstones of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(2)(a), which requires a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(2)(a). Plaintiff’s complaint is largely unintelligible and
incomprehensible, and a dismissal of the complaint is clearly appropriate. See
Stephanatos v. Cohen, 236 F. App’x 785, 787 (3d Cir. 2007). Furthermore,
Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed as it is so unclear, that the Defendant
would have “to guess what of the many things discussed constituted [a cause of
action].” See Binsack v. Lackawanna County Prison, 438 F. App’x 158 (3d Cir.
Within his objections Plaintiff seeks to save his claim by reiterating
assertions found within his original complaint and warning of an impending war
entitled “the United National and Russia and Civil War.” While Plaintiff is
certainly passionate about the President’s alleged wrongdoing, his claims are
frivolous and he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Furthermore, as explained by Magistrate Judge Carlson, Plaintiff has a lengthy
history of frivolous litigation, which continues to this suit. As such, granting
further leave to amend would be futile and his complaint shall be dismissed with
An appropriate order shall issue.
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?