Simpson v. United States Company Corporation et al

Filing 5

ORDER: The Clerk will File the complaint in forma pauperis. However, process shall not issue. The court finds that the plaintiff's "Declaration" is frivolous and/or fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted. This case i s DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Because an appeal would NOT be taken in good faith, the plaintiff is NOT certified to appeal the judgment of the court in forma pauperis. This order constitutes final judgment in this action. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 2/21/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TIMOTHY MATTHEW SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES COMPANY
CORPORATION and DOES 1-1000,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:13-cv-00109
Judge Sharp

ORDER
Pending before the court is a pro se complaint (Docket No. 1) and an application to proceed in
forma pauperis (Docket No. 2). The plaintiff is a resident of Antioch, Tennessee.
From a review of his application to proceed in forma pauperis, it appears that the plaintiff lacks
sufficient financial resources to pay the filing fee. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4), the
Clerk will FILE the complaint in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, process shall not
issue.
Because the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this case, the court must screen the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pro se complaints are to be construed liberally by the
court. See Boag v. McDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the
court is required to dismiss a complaint brought by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis “at any
time the court determines” that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (B)(ii). A complaint is frivolous and warrants
dismissal when the claim “lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact if it contains factual allegations
that are fantastic or delusional, or if it is based on legal theories that are indisputably meritless. Id. at
327-28; Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d

1196, 1198-99 (6th Cir. 1990).
The plaintiff has filed an eight (8) page “Declaration” with the court in which he asks the court
to dissolve a “trust.” (Docket No. 3 at pp. 1-8). The plaintiff alleges that he
has paid any all debts associated with his property and or person and/or
estate to the tune of US$600 billion (the department of the US Treasury,
As Well As the Bureau Public Debt, As Well As the State of Tennessee,
As Well As the State of Texas, As Well As the State of California, each
has Received security instruments to cover any and all debts associated
with the administrating of the trust, associated with his affairs, leaving
a balance due to the presenter of more than US$560 billion that is now
due and payable and is demanded.
(Docket No. 3 at pp. 7-8).
The plaintiff states that “[t]he court claims that no trust exists and that it does not have fiduciary
responsibilities in relation to the trust/trusts!” (Docket No. 3 at p. 1). However, the court has not
entered any prior orders in this case and has been unable to locate any records in any other cases
involving the plaintiff.

The plaintiff mentions “the original trust agreement between THE

SOVEREIGN ALMIGHTY GOD JEHOVAH and the presenter through his founding father the
original creation known as man on the planet called Earth,” (Docket No. 3 at p. 2)(emphasis in
original), but the court is unable to discern the nature of the trust of which the plaintiff writes.
The plaintiff names the “United States Company Corporation” as a defendant but does not
mention the “United States Company Corporation” by name in the body of his complaint. The plaintiff
additionally names one thousand (1000) “John Doe” defendants in this case but it is wholly unclear
from the plaintiff’s “Declaration” what wrongful actions or inactions these unnamed defendants
allegedly committed.
Although pro se pleadings are subject to liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972), liberal construction does not require the court to create a claim which the plaintiff has not
spelled out in his complaint. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). The plaintiff must
2

identify the right or privilege that was violated and the role of the defendant in the alleged violation.
Dunn v. Tennessee, 697 F.2d 121, 128 (6th Cir. 1982). Here, the plaintiff’s “Declaration” fails to meet
the basic pleading requirements as the court is unable to understand the nature of the plaintiff’s federal
claims, the basis for federal court jurisdiction, or the role the defendants allegedly played in the
violation of the plaintiff’s rights.
Consequently, the court finds that the plaintiff’s “Declaration” is frivolous and/or fails to state
claims upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and
(B)(ii), this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Because an appeal would NOT be taken in
good faith, the plaintiff is NOT certified to appeal the judgment of the court in forma pauperis. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
This order constitutes final judgment in this action.
It is so ORDERED.

Kevin H. Sharp
United States District Judge

3