Laney

Filing 6

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

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-