GAMACHE v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al

Filing 2

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the instant action be dismissed as frivolous in accordance with this Court's authority under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff's 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by GREG GAMACHE, should be dismissed as moot. Objections to R&R due by 3/31/2011. Signed by Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 3/11/11. (lrw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GREG GAMACHE,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 11-59 Erie

Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION
It is hereby recommended that the instant action be dismissed as frivolous in accordance with
this Court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis should be dismissed as moot.

II. REPORT
On March 10, 2011, Plaintiff, a resident of Saint Charles, Missouri, filed the instant action
naming the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Federal Communications Commission as
Defendants. In his unsigned “Civil Motion” which this Court has liberally construed as his
complaint, Plaintiff alleges that tens of thousands of individuals have been injured by the use of
electronic weapons against them, yet the named agency Defendants have refused to investigate a
single incident. Plaintiff claims that some of these incidents of the use of electronic weaponry
have occurred at unspecified places within this state. As relief, Plaintiff seeks a court order

1

directing both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Communications Commission
to investigate “these matters whenever they are reported across the entire United States.” ECF
No. 1-1, page 3.
With regards to a proceeding in forma pauperis such as this one, the United States
Congress has directed: “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that -- … (b) the action … -- (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “Dismissals [under 28 U.S.C. § 1915] are often made sua
sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience
and expense of answering such complaints.” Neitzke v. Williams, 190 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
The statute not only empowers the court to screen out frivolous cases before the complaint is
served, it actually encourages it. Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 195-96 (3d Cir. 1990).
In this case, a review of the PACER dockets reveals that Plaintiff has recently filed identical
cases in several other federal district courts. See Greg Gamache v. Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 5:11-cv-125 (M.D. Florida, filed March 10, 2011); Greg Gamache v. Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 1:11-cv-25 (N.D. West Virginia, filed March 10, 2011); Greg Gamache
v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 4:11-cv-142 (D. Arizona, filed March 10, 2011); Greg
Gamache v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1:11-cv-86 (N.D. Indiana, filed March 9, 2011);
Greg Gamache v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1:11-cv-210 (D. Delaware, filed March 10,
2011).
Further, Plaintiff has also filed several lawsuits which are similar to the instant action. In
these suits, Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring the passage of a state law “protecting its
citizens from the use of electronic weapons.” See Greg Gamache v. The State of South Carolina,

2

6:11-cv-566 (D. South Carolina, filed March 10, 2011); Greg Gamache v. The State of
Delaware, 1:11-cv-204 (D. Delaware, filed March 9, 2011); Greg Gamache v. The State of North
Carolina, 5:11-cv-108 (E.D. North Carolina, filed March 9, 2011). Additionally, Plaintiff has
also filed several lawsuits seeking a court order requiring the federal government to pass a
federal law regarding the use of electronic weapons. See Greg Gamache v. United States of
America, 6:11-cv-573 (D. South Carolina, filed March 10, 2011); Greg Gamache v. United
States of America, 1:11-cv-205 (D. Delaware, filed March 9, 2011); Gregory Gamache v. United
States of America, 5:11-cv-109 (E.D. North Carolina, filed March 9, 2011); Gregory Gamache v.
USA, 1:11-cv-593 (D. Colorado, filed March 9, 2011); Gregory Gamache v. USA and State of
Idaho, 1:11-cv-92 (D. Idaho, filed March 9, 2011) (complaint against USA seeking passage of
federal law and complaint against State of Idaho seeking passage of state law conditionally filed
together); Gregory Gamache v. United States of America, 3:11-cv-296 (D. Oregon, filed March
9, 2011); Gregory Gamache v. United States of America, 3:11-cv-173 (W.D. Wisconsin, filed
March 9, 2011). Besides the cases listed here, Plaintiff has filed numerous other lawsuits in the
federal courts across the United States. See, for example, Greg Gamache v. Various Unknown
Individuals Employing Mind Altering Devices, 2011 WL 240219 (D. Maine, 2011).
Here, besides the abusive nature of the duplicative filings, Plaintiff’s patently frivolous
allegations warrant dismissal of this case. A claim is frivolous if the alleged facts are “irrational
or wholly incredible, as when they are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional.” Murph v. Stumbo,
2005 WL 2245466, at *1 (W.D. Ky., 2005) citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-3
(1992). In my opinion, Plaintiff’s complaint fits squarely within that category and should be
dismissed as frivolous.

3

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the instant action be

dismissed as frivolous in accordance with this Court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be dismissed as
moot.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from
the date of service to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Failure to file
timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights. See Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d
187 (3d Cir. 2007).

/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: March 11, 2011

4