Flores v. United States Attorney General et al

Filing 3

ORDER granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Dismissing Complaint with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 3/12/2013. (pac)

U.S. D!5Tx\C'T CO "T
DISTRICT 0,: VER

F i L~'!:;

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

20lH1AR 12 PM 2: 38
CLERK

BY _____
~~~-----DEPUl

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

~f G~.E ~¥:

Case No.5: 13-cv-33

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Eric Flores claims that unnamed government employees have used
satellite transmissions to injure various individuals, including Mr. Flores himself. Before
the court is his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Mr. Flores's
financial affidavit meets the requirements of28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his motion to proceed

in forma pauperis is GRANTED. However, for the reasons set forth below, his
Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Mr. Flores is representing himself.

I.

Factual Background.
Mr. Flores states that he is bringing this action "to complain against diplomatic

persons of another nation that 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 12-13.) As an example of the claims set forth
in his 104-page Complaint, Mr. Flores alleges that satellites have caused Cynthia Lorenza
Flores to suffer spinal, heart, and abdominal pain; have caused her body temperature to
rise to over 110 degrees, resulting in second-degree bums; have caused her to use
cocaine; and have communicated "vulgar language" that has led "to sleep deprivation
almost resulting in her death requiring medical treatment." Id. at 14-17.
Mr. Flores 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
person." Id. at 18-19. He sets forth similar allegations of harm with respect to himself;
Javier 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. Mr. Flores also alleges
that government officials impaired the bodily functions of young babies, and caused the
deaths of several of his relatives.
Some ofthe victims of these alleged attacks received medical treatment at Sierra
Medical Center in EI 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. Id. at 96. 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 recently dismissed a nearly identical action. See Flores v.

u.s.

Attorney General, Case No. 5: 13-cv-7 (Doc. 2.) Other courts have also received claims

of government employees directing satellite transmissions at Mexican-American citizens.
2

See Flores v. McDoug, 2011 WL 2729192, at * 1 (W.D. Tex. July 12, 2011); 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, et al. v. United
States, 2011 WL 1457142, at *4 (Fed. Cl. April 8, 2011). The claims have been
uniformly dismissed as frivolous. Id. One court has barred Mr. Flores from filing
anything further in this regard, noting that he has "a lengthy history of vexatious filings,"
and imposing a monetary sanction for any future filings. Flores, 2011 WL 2729192, at

*1-2.
II.

Conclusions of Law and Analysis.
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 must dismiss a case if it determines that the
complaint "is frivolous or malicious; 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 either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,325 (1989);

see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (complaint lacks an arguable
basis if "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 the irrational or the wholly

3

incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict
them." Denton, 504 U.S. at 33.
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 an arguable
basis in law or fact. The same result is warranted here.
The court also notes that with respect to Mr. Flores's assertion of a "protected
class" of plaintiffs, a pro se litigant may not represent a plaintiff class. See 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"); see also 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,
absent some demonstration that a viable claim may be asserted. 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 plaintiffs]
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 WITH PREJUDICE.

4

SO ORDERED.

Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this ~ay of March, 2013.

Christina Reiss, Chief Judge

United States District Court

5