Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Case terminated on 1/31/2017(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rhawkins)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 31, 2017 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION David J. Bradley, Clerk § § CIVIL ACTION: H-14-mc-01290 § HAROLD LANEY 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 Clan Laney,” “the true American Paramount Bailor,” “a U.S. Elector,” “El Harold Laney,” “an at Peace American Indian nation of one,” etc. 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 364 (2d Cir. 2011)(dismissing a history complaint of Sept. that 11, set 2011 forth fantastical alternative attacks.”). See also DeGrazia v. FBI, 316 Fed. Appx. 172, 173 a terrorist (3d 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 -1- ‘are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, . . . obviously frivolous, . . . plainly unsubstantial, . . . or no 415 U.S. longer open to discussion.”), quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 528, 536-37 (1974)(“[A] substantial question necessary to support jurisdiction.”)(citing cases therein). [is] “When 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 jurisdiction. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 31st day of January , 2017. ___________________________ MELINDA HARMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

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?