Flores v. United States Attorney General et al

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. This case is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 9/24/2013. (law)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
ERIC FLORES,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
GENERAL, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
SIERRA MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-226

OPINION AND ORDER
(Doc. 1)
Plaintiff Eric Flores, proceeding pro se, brings this
action claiming that unnamed government employees, at the
direction of foreign nations, have used satellite
transmissions to harm numerous individuals, including Mr.
Flores himself.

Before the court is Mr. Flores’s motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Because the supporting

financial affidavit meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a), the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is
GRANTED.

However, for the reasons set forth below, this

case is DISMISSED.
Factual Background
Mr. Flores claims that “diplomatic persons of another

nation . . . have solicit[]ed an organized group of
executive employees of the federal government” to use
advanced technology with a direct signal to the
satellite in outerspace that has the capability of
calculate[]ing a genetic code to cause the
petitioner and his immediate relatives severe
physical and mental pain for long durations
exceeding calendar years which was equivalent in
intensity to organ failure, impairment of body
functions, and death.
(Doc. 1-2 at 13.)

As an example of the many individual

claims he asserts in his 104-page Complaint, Mr. Flores
alleges that satellites caused Cynthia Lorenza Flores to
suffer spinal, heart, and abdominal pain; caused her body
temperature to rise to over 110 degrees, resulting in
second-degree burns; caused her to use cocaine; and
communicated “vulgar language” that led “to sleep
deprivation almost resulting in her death requiring medical
treatment.”

Id. at 13-18.

He further claims that “the

satellite in outerspace . . . has the capability of
calculat[]ing a genetic code to virtu[ally] communicate
threats to use a weapon such as a gun to shoot and cause the
death of Cynthia Lorenza Flores,” and to “take physical
control of [her] mental state of mind while she is driving a
vehicle for the purpose of compel[l]ing her into an act of
dures[s] such as crashing her vehicle into another object or
2

person.”

Id. at 18-19.

Mr. Flores sets forth similar

allegations of harm with respect to himself; Javior Vensor
Flores Sr.; Andy Flores; Joanna Flores; Steven Flores;
Micheal Rene Flores; Evagelina Salas Mendoza; and other
Mexican-Americans citizens of the United States whom Mr.
Flores names as a potential class of plaintiffs.
Some of the victims of these alleged attacks received
medical treatment at Sierra Medical Center in El Paso,
Texas.

Mr. Flores now requests assistance from the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services to determine whether
Sierra Medical Center “departed from accepted standards of
medical care” by refusing to disclose medical records that
would help him prove his theory of satellite attacks.
at 98.

Id.

Mr. Flores also requests a grand jury investigation,

disclosure by the U.S. Attorney General as to the
government’s motives for the alleged attacks, and a court
order barring government retaliation that might occur as
result of this court filing.
This is not the first time Mr. Flores has raised these,
or similar, claims in federal court.

Indeed, this Court has

dismissed two nearly-identical actions.

See Flores v. U.S.

Atty. Gen., Case No. 5:13-cv-7 (Doc. 2.); Flores v. U.S.

3

Atty. Gen., 2013 WL 969057 (D. Vt. Mar. 12, 2013).

Other

courts have also received Mr. Flores’s claims of government
employees directing satellite transmissions at
Mexican-American citizens.

See Flores v. United States

Attorney General, 442 F. App’x 383, 385 (10th Cir. 2011);
Flores v. United States Attorney General, 434 F. App’x 387,
388 (5th Cir. 2011); Flores v. McDoug, 2011 WL 2729192, at
*1 (W.D. Tex. July 12, 2011); Flores, et al. v. United
States, 2011 WL 1457142, at *4 (Fed. Cl.

Apr. 8, 2011).

These claims have been uniformly dismissed as frivolous, and
one court has barred Mr. Flores from filing anything further
in this regard, noting that he has “a lengthy history of
vexatious filings.”

Flores, 2011 WL 2729192, at *1-*2.
Discussion

The court is mindful that “[a] document filed pro se is
to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).

Nonetheless, pursuant to the in forma

pauperis statute, a district court may dismiss a case if it
determines that the complaint “is frivolous or malicious;

4

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.”

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

A court also has

inherent authority to dismiss a case that presents no
meritorious issue.

See Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St.

Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding
that a district court may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua
sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing
fee); Pillay v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 45 F.3d
14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that the court has “inherent
authority” to dismiss a petition that presents “no arguably
meritorious issue”).
The Supreme Court has held that a complaint “is
frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in
fact.”

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see

also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (complaint
lacks an arguable basis “the facts alleged are clearly
baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are
fanciful, fantastic, and delusional”).

“A finding of

factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged
rise to the level of irrational or wholly incredible,
whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts

5

available to contradict them.”

Denton, 504 U.S. at 33.

In Mr. Flores’s most recent action before this Court,
Chief Judge Reiss concluded as follows:
Here, the Complaint alleges that unnamed federal
employees, acting on behalf of foreign diplomats,
have caused and continue to cause harm by means of
signals from satellites. The Complaint further
alleges that medical documents evidencing such
harm have been wrongfully withheld. As noted
above, a number of courts have reviewed Mr.
Flores’s claims previously, and each has dismissed
the complaint for lack of an arguable basis in law
or fact. The same result is warranted here.
Flores, 2013 WL 969057 at *2.

The Court now applies this

same conclusion to the instant case, as the allegations are
essentially identical to those presented before Chief Judge
Reiss.
Judge Reiss also noted, and the Court reasserts here,
that Mr. Flores may not represent a “protected class” of
plaintiffs.

Id. at *3 (citing Nwanze v. Philip Morris Inc.,

100 F. Supp. 2d 215, 218 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (recognizing
“the well established federal rule forbidding pro se
plaintiffs from conducting class action litigation”); Guest
v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15, 20 (2d Cir. 2010) (“A person who has
not been admitted to the practice of law may not represent
anybody other than himself.”)).

Finally, the Court declines

to sua sponte grant Mr. Flores leave to amend his claims, as
6

any such amendment would be futile.

See Flores, 2010 WL

5540951, at *4 (denying leave to amend because amendment
would not raise Mr. Flores’s claims above “the realm of the
irrational and fantastic”); see also Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222
F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (“The problem with [pro se
plaintiff’s] causes of action is substantive; better
pleading will not cure it.

Repleading would thus be futile.

Such a futile request to replead should be denied.”).
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, and having conducted
the review required under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), Mr.
Flores’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is
GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED.
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this
24th day of September, 2013.
/s/ William K. Sessions III
William K. Sessions III
Judge, United States District Court

7