Roy v. USA Govt. et al
Filing
2
OPINION AND ORDER Dismissing Complaint without prejudice and finding as moot 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Court is unable to identify any viable federal claim or facts to support such a claim. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 9/12/2011. (pam)
· US DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT DF VERMONT
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ZOlI SEP 12 PH 2: 12
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
CLERK
BY
Kamal Kama Roy,
Plaintiff,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
:71:1
DEPUT
y CtElHC
Case No. 5:11-cv-213
United States Government; All
States of USA; Associated Press,
Inc.; New York State Department of
Education; Michael Bloomberg;
Government of the United Kingdom;
Government of Hawaii; United Nations; )
Barack Obama; Michelle Obama; and
)
Mary E. Zysinski;
)
)
Defendants.
)
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
(Doc. 1)
Plaintiff Kamal Kama Roy, a New York resident proceeding pro se, seeks to
file a Complaint in this court. Pending before the court is Mr. Roy's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. Because the court cannot discern the Plaintiff s financial
status based upon the information set forth in his motion, it cannot issue a ruling on
the motion. The question of in forma pauperis status is moot, however, since for the
reasons set forth more fully below, this case must be DISMISSED without prejudice.
When a court reviews an application to proceed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 mandates that it conduct an initial screening to ensure that the complaint has a
legal basis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A court must dismiss the complaint sua
sponte if it determines that the allegations of poverty are untrue or if the action is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
The Complaint in this case is 152 pages in length, including exhibits. Aside from
documents that have been photocopied, the text is barely legible and extremely
fragmented. Defendants in the case include the governments of the United States, the
United Kingdom and the State of Hawaii; a state agency in New York; Mayor Michael
Bloomberg; the Associated Press; President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle
Obama. Although not at all clear, there appears to be a claim that President Obama was
not born in the United States, and that this alleged fact has been ignored by the three
branches of the federal government. Exhibits submitted with the Complaint include
correspondence with the Internal Revenue Service and the Harrietstown Housing
Authority, tax and income information regarding a group entitled Handicap Interest
International World Religions Group, and copies of civil cover sheets from other
litigation brought by this Plaintiff in district courts throughout the country.
Mr. Roy's submissions do not conform with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, as they do not contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction" or "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Specifically, there are no clear statements
regarding the basis for this court's jurisdiction, the legal causes of action being asserted,
or the facts underlying such causes of action. As a result, the court is unable to identify
any viable federal claim or facts to support such a claim. As one court commented with
regard to an apparently similar filing by this same Plaintiff,
[e]ven in those rare moments that the Court is able to make out a coherent
sentence or phrase, the Court can discern no cause of action, nor any factual
allegations, that might serve as the basis for a cause of action in federal
court. Indeed, nothing about these submissions is 'simple, concise, and
direct,' as directed by Rule 8(e)(1).
Roy v. We The People, 2007 WL 4299177, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5,2007)1 see also Roy v.
Us. Government, 2009 WL 1449090, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 21, 2009) (noting the lack
of "a comprehensible sentence"); Roy v. Democratic Republic of USA, 2008 WL
3413898, at * 1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8,2008) (characterizing complaint as "lengthy and
illegible").
2
If a complaint is "so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that
its true substance, if any, is well disguised," a district court may dismiss the case.
Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Furthermore, leave to amend need
not be granted where it clear that any effort to do so would be futile. See Ching v. United
States, 298 F.3d 174, 180 (2d Cir. 2002). Because this is such a case, the court cannot
allow the action to proceed. See, e.g., Roy v. United States, 2009 WL 4064578, at *2 (D.
Vt. Nov. 20, 2009).1 Mr. Roy's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is
therefore DENIED as moot, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
SO ORDERED.
!J'1
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this J2 day of September, 2011.
~
..
Chnstina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court
The court also notes Mr. Roy's history as a serial filer. See Roy v. 2 Democratic
Senators ojNYS, 2009 WL 2905486, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2009) (citing cases)
(noting that Mr. Roy has filed, under various names, "some 161 other pro se civil rights
actions in federal courts across the country ... , the vast majority of which have been
rather promptly dismissed under Rules 8, 10 and/or 12. Many of these dismissals were
issued expressly based on frivolousness.").
1
3
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?