Strege v. Nuclear Missile Rosatom ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Adam Strege, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 24-11156 Hon. Jonathan J.C. Grey Nuclear Missile Rosatom et al., Defendants. _________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT Adam Strege filed this complaint pro se against (1) Nuclear Missile Rosatom, (2) “Social Security,” (3) “10 Unknown Named Grand Rapids Michigan Social Security Administrative law Judges Office Workers,” (4) all Social Security directors, (5) Social Security Inspector General Gail Ennis, (6) Social Security Deputy Commissioner, (7) Civil Rights Director Claudia J. Postell, (8) Social Security Chief Actuary Stephen C. Goss, (9) “Department Justice Civil Rights Chief Rebecca Bond,” (10) Medicare Director Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, (11) Social Security FOIA Liaison Michelle Christ, (12) Social Security OEIO FOIA Liaison Abdul Raheem, (13) “Unknown Named CA Disability Determination Service Directors,” (14) Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, and (15) Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen. All government officials were sued in their individual and official capacities. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Strege’s application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs and DISMISSES the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Further, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Strege’s motions: (a) to electronically file, (b) to compel, and (c) for restraining order. (ECF Nos. 3, 7, 8.) I. Legal Standard Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court may allow a person to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs, i.e., in forma pauperis. However, the Court is required to review each case for summary dismissal if the action is frivolous, 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). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). This can apply to both inarguable legal conclusions and fanciful factual allegations. II. Analysis The Court finds that Strege is unable to pay the filing fee (see ECF No. 2) and GRANTS his application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, the Court also finds that Strege complaint is frivolous and relies on allegations that have no arguable basis in fact. Strege makes many allegations against many people and entities, some named as defendants and some not. He makes statements about nuclear warfare, coronavirus, various court proceedings, malicious arrests, the stock markets, and various other topics. Strege alleges that some, or possibly all, of the defendants are untruthful about everything and that they caused the arrest of innocent people. He alleges that people are regularly launching nuclear missiles at each other. He states that the defendants have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. He also claims that the defendants violated numerous federal statutes such as the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Sherman Act, and the Civil Rights Act. He also claims that defendants conspired to put human body parts in hamburgers. However, at no point in his complaint does Strege raise a plausible claim that any of the defendants named are liable to him or that he is entitled to the $20 million in damages he seeks. Further, some of the relief he requests, like an order for all United States of America banks to verify that it is safe for him to go outside, is not within Court’s powers to grant. The Court finds his complaint lacks any arguable basis in law or in fact and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that Strege’s application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Strege’s cause of action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all defendants. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Strege’s motions to electronically file, to compel, and for restraining order are DENIED AS MOOT. (See ECF Nos. 3, 7, 8.) SO ORDERED. s/ Jonathan J.C. Grey_______ Jonathan J.C. Grey United States District Judge Dated: September 5, 2024 Certificate of Service The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First-Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 5, 2024. s/ S. Osorio Sandra Osorio Case Manager