Hamilton v. Trump
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 2 EMERGENCY MOTION, Case terminated on 1/5/17. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 1 is granted. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 3 is denied. The case is hereby dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. This is a Final Judgment.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified. Copy mailed to plaintiff via reg. mail.(dperez, 3)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LOUIS CHARLES HAMILTON II,
DONALD JOHN TRUMP SR.,
January 05, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton, II’s
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1), Emergency Motion for Cease and
Desist Order (Dkt. 2), and Motion to Compel President-Elect to Release Tax Information
Prior to January 20, 2017 (Dkt. 3).
Hamilton is the Plaintiff in at least thirteen suits brought in the Southern District,
several of which have been dismissed as frivolous. See Order of Dismissal, Dkt. 45,
Hamilton v. Magnus-Lawson, 4:10-cv-220; Memorandum and Opinion, Dkt. 4, Hamilton
v. Johnson, 4:12-cv-1122.
Hamilton brought this suit on behalf of, inter alia,
approximately fifty black celebrities (living and dead), 42.7 million Negro slaves, the
British Empire, and thirty-seven allied countries. This suit was brought against the
President-Elect and his family, Trump Tower, several defense agencies, the Republican
Party, and the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Hamilton seeks to prevent President-Elect
Trump and various U.S. embassies from continuing their “ongoing campaign of cyberenabled operations” aimed at “attacking critical infrastructure networks [and] military
intelligence services to compromise and exploit networks . . . associated with the U.S.
elections . . . .” Hamilton also seeks the release of the President-Elect’s tax information
prior to the inauguration.
Courts should liberally construe pro se actions, which, “however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Santos v. Holder, Civil Action No. H-11-0546, 2011 WL 901842, at *2 (S.D.
Tex. Mar. 13, 2011) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
courts must dismiss a pro se action upon determination that “the action or appeal—(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). A complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.”
Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). “A complaint lacks an arguable
basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the
complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.” Siglar v.
Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
After thoroughly reviwing—and liberally construing—the Plaintiff’s pleadings,
the Court can find no valid legal interest as alleged by the Plaintiff. The claims therefore
lack an arguable basis in law. Accordingly, this case is subject to dismissal as legally
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) is
2. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Cease and Desist Order (Dkt. 2) is
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 3) is DENIED.
4. This case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous. This is a
5. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to the parties.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 5th day of January, 2017.
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District 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?