United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff proceeds in this case in forma pauperis
(IFP) and pro se. The Court previously granted
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP. ECF No. 5.
This case is before the undersigned for determination of
whether service should issue on the Defendants. 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) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because, I find
the claims made in the Complaint are entirely frivolous and
because the Defendants are immune from any civil liability
for their official acts, I make the following Report and
allegations of the Complaint are difficult to decipher and
make little sense. The Plaintiff claims entitlement to a
$250, 000 annual "residual" payment for
"consulting service" provided to President Obama.
He makes reference to a "promissory note" payable
to him from the "President Obama Administration"
but provides no details or copies of such alleged contract.
Plaintiff claims President Obama plagiarized Plaintiff's
work and "didn't share the wealth." Plaintiff
claims his ideas helped pay down the national debt by 20%.
Further, Plaintiff claims he offered his service to President
Obama who shared it with President Trump. ECF No. 1, pp. 7-8.
As stated, the Complaint makes little sense and appears
nonsensical in its claims.
some district courts have limited § 1915(e)(2)(B)
pre-service dismissal to litigants who are prisoners, the
Eighth Circuit has on several occasions affirmed decisions
dismissing non-prisoner cases under § 1915(e). See,
e.g., Stebbins v. Stebbins, 575 Fed.Appx. 705 (8th Cir.
2014) (unpublished per curiam); Fogle v.
Blake, 227 Fed.Appx. 542 (8th Cir. 2007) (unpublished
per curiam); Benter v. Iowa, 221 Fed.Appx.
471 (8th Cir. 2007) (unpublished per curiam);
Carter v. Bickhaus, 142 Fed.Appx. 937 (8th Cir.
2005) (unpublished per curiam).
generally the Court may not dismiss a non-prisoner in
forma pauperis complaint prior to service for failure to
state a claim, the Court has the power to dismiss, prior to
service, a complaint that is frivolous on its face or that
seeks relief from defendants who are clearly immune from
United States Supreme Court has explained the difference in
dismissal for failure to state a claim and dismissal of a
frivolous claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) in cases
involving non-prisoner plaintiffs proceeding
Section 1915(d) has a separate function, one which molds
rather differently the power to dismiss which it confers.
Section 1915(d) is designed largely to discourage the filing
of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon,
baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not
initiate because of the costs of bringing suit and because of
the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. To this end,
the statute accords judges not only the authority to dismiss
a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but
also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the
complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims
whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.
Examples of the former class are claims against which it is
clear that the defendants are immune from suit, see,
e.g., Williams v. Goldsmith, 701 F.2d 603 (CA7 1983),
and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly
does not exist, like respondent Williams' claim that his
transfer within the reformatory violated his rights under the
Due Process Clause. Examples of the latter class are claims
describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with
which federal district judges are all too familiar.
. . .
That frivolousness in the § 1915(d) context refers to a
more limited set of claims than does Rule 12(b)(6) accords,
moreover, with the understanding articulated in other areas
of law that not all unsuccessful claims are frivolous.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28, 330-31
(1989) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court in
Neitzke affirmed the dismissal of claims against
defendants where the plaintiff could "make no rational
argument to support his claims for relief against these
officials." Id. at n. 2.
Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed if it is
frivolous, malicious, or seeks monetary relief from a party
immune to suit. Because he is a pro se litigant, his
complaint must be construed liberally. See Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). However, even a pro
se litigants must allege sufficient facts to support the
(non-frivolous) claims contained in the complaint. Stone
v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).
case is subject to dismissal. First, the claims contained in
the complaint are frivolous, irrational and clearly legally
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.). Second, the President
of the United States has absolute immunity from civil
liability for his official acts. Nixon v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982). Here, all of the
allegations, to the extent ...