Kingdom v. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri ( 2019 )

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEC 29 2019 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI . S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DIVISION EASTERN DISTRICT OF MO CAPE GIRARDEAU DIVINE KING KINGDOM, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) . ) v. ) No. 4:19-cv-3296-SNLJ ) U.S. DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN ) DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, ) ) Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon plaintiff Divine King Kingdom’s submission of a civil complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon consideration of the motion and the financial information provided therein, the Court finds that plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. The motion will therefore be granted. Additionally, for the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss the complaint because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Legal Standard on Initial Review This Court is required to dismiss an action filed in forma pauperis upon the determination that, inter alia, it is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)G). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). The term “frivolous,” when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Jd. While federal courts should not dismiss an action commenced in forma pauperis if the facts alleged are merely unlikely, the court can properly dismiss such an action if the allegations in the complaint are found to be “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. 319). Allegations are clearly baseless 1f they are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional,” or if they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Jd. The Complaint Plaintiff filed the instant complaint against this United States District Court. He invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction and avers that this case involves his First Amendment right to religious freedom. He also avers that the amount in controversy is “unlimited amount of funds to my church bank acct. My Civil. Rights are broken by the law.” (ECF No. 1 at 4). He alleges as follows. 1. inherited Lord of 5 civilized tribes on my grandfather death in 2007, I was honored thru ceremony ritual in 2017. I have been discriminated against for my religion by the State-of Missouri USA. 2. 12/18/2019 3. My home address on my MO drivers license 4. Inflamed [illegible] spirit. 5. They failed to protect my civil liberties. Id. at 5 (editing marks in original). In setting forth his claim for relief, plaintiff writes: “My Religious Ritual is to be chief Ambassador for the US for eternity.” Jd. Discussion Having reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, the Court is unable to discern plaintiff's claims. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to formulate their pleadings in an organized and comprehensible manner. Even pro se plaintiffs are required to set out not only their alleged claims in a simple, concise, and direct manner, but also the facts in support of such claims. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Here, plaintiff has not done so. While this Court must liberally construe pro se filings, this Court will not construct claims or assume facts that plaintiff has not alleged. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (refusing to supply additional facts or to construct a legal theory for the pro se plaintiff that assumed facts that had not been pleaded). Additionally, plaintiffs allegations and his prayer for relief are nonsensical, and indeed “rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. The Court therefore finds that plaintiffs allegations are clearly baseless as defined in Denton. The Court will therefore dismiss this action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Dated this ROM day of December, 2019. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE