ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Case terminated on 1/31/2017(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rhawkins)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
January 31, 2017
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§ CIVIL ACTION: H-14-mc-01290
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court in the above referenced cause are a
number of incomprehensible documents filed by pro se Plaintiff
Harold Laney, who variously describes himself as “Harold of the
Elector,” “El Harold Laney,” “an at Peace American Indian nation of
He names no defendant.
Plaintiff has not moved to
proceed in forma pauperis, and instrument 1, filed May 28, 2014,
indicates that he has not paid the filing fee.
“Rule 12(b)(6) does not ordinarily allow dismissal based on
the mere fact that a judge does not believe a complainant’s factual
allegations. Dismissal has nonetheless been found appropriate when
the well-pleaded fats were clearly baseless because they are
fanciful, fantastic or delusional.”
Crawford v. U.S. Marshal
Police City Marshal Dept., Civ. A. No. 14-cv-0512, 2014 WL 2041949,
at *2 (W.D. La. May 15, 2014), citing Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d
See also DeGrazia v. FBI, 316 Fed. Appx. 172, 173
Cir. 2009)(“A federal court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) when the allegations within the complaint
‘are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of
merit, . . . obviously frivolous, . . . plainly unsubstantial, . .
. or no
longer open to discussion.”), quoting Hagans v. Lavine,
necessary to support jurisdiction.”)(citing cases therein).
a plaintiff’s complaint is facially frivolous and insubstantial, it
is insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court.”
Dilworth v. Dallas County Community College Dist., 81 F.3d 616, 617
(5th Cir. 1996). In accord Olivares v. Marin, 555 F.2d 1192, 1195
(5th Cir. 1977); Raymon v. Alvord Indep. Sch. Dist., 639 F.2d 257,
257 (5th Cir. 1981).
A court may dismiss a frivolous complaint.
Pope v. Mountcastle Mortg. Corp., Civ. A. No. 3-11-CV-1689-B, 2011
WL 4986927, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2011)(dismissing case where
complaint is a “hodgepodge of incoherent ramblings”), citing inter
alia Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street Tenants, 221 F.3d 362,
363-64 (2d Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, the Court
ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this
January , 2017.
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?