Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chermak v. Obama

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division

March 23, 2015

SARAH MARIE CHERMAK, Plaintiff,
v.
BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, Acting in the Office of the President of the United States a/k/a Barry Soetoro; MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BOTH SENATE AND HOUSE; and MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT, Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MARK E. FORD, Magistrate Judge.

The Plaintiff proceeds in this case in forma pauperis and pro se. This case is before me for pre-service screening. Under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (a) are frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

I. Background

According to the allegations of the complaint, the President, Members of both the House and the Senate, and the members of the Supreme Court do not adhere to the provisions of the United States Constitution, do not uphold their oaths of office, and do not faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are guilty of misprison of treason and sedition.

II. Discussion

"In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, ... to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) ( quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). A claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

This case is subject to dismissal. Because Plaintiff has named federal officials as Defendants, I construe this case as a Bivens claim. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971), the United States Supreme Court allowed a plaintiff to seek money damages from federal officials for alleged violations of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. "An action under Bivens is almost identical to an action under section 1983, except that the former is maintained against federal officials while the latter is against state officials." Christian v. Crawford, 907 F.2d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 1990).

While Bivens allows a plaintiff to seek redress against federal actors for civil rights violations, the Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff has no Bivens cause of action against federal agencies, the United States, or public officials acting in their official capacities. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994). Plaintiff, therefore, has no Bivens action against the United States President, the members of the House and the Senate, or the members of the Supreme Court acting in their official capacities.

Furthermore, the factual allegations contained in the complaint are irrational and clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325-328 (1989)(clearly baseless allegations are those that are fantastic, fanciful, or delusional.).

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, I recommend that this case be dismissed as the claims are frivolous and fail to state claims on which relief may be granted.

The Plaintiff has fourteen (14) days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Plaintiff is reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.