Cambron v. Obama

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 28 2010
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Clerk. U.S. Olstrlct & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
CHRISTOPHER PAUL CAMBRON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1C 1831
)
PRESIDENT OBAMA, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff s application to proceed in
forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the
complaint.
The court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has the authority to dismiss not only
claims based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions
are clearly baseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of
cases whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. !d. at 328. The trial court has the discretion
to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged
are irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Plaintiff alleges that his non-profit agency "has advised the White House successfully,
with 100% accuracy, on national security issues" since the Clinton administration, Compl. at 2,
1
N .~
but the Obama administration apparently has refused plaintiffs assistance. He accuses the
Obama administration of having knowledge of "increased seizmic [sic] activity before the
disaster in the [West] Virginia mine, ... knowledge of dangers to all underground activity before
the Gulf disaster," as well as knowledge of dangers resulting in the gas explosion in San Bruno,
California, doing nothing to prevent harm, therefore making the President "responsible for the
Americans that died in these []tragedies." Id. at 4. Plaintiff demands "$500,000 for punitive and
compensatory damages." Id. at 5.
The court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent
standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404
u.S. 519,520 (1972). Having reviewed plaintiffs complaint, the court concludes that its factual
contentions are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaint is frivolous and
must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An Order consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE:
2