United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Mark Downey ("Downey"), acting pro se,
filed this case alleging federal question jurisdiction.
Downey sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis
("IFP"). His IFP application was granted. This case
is now before the Court for pre-service screening pursuant to
the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
is a citizen of Virginia, and it is unclear from his filings
why he chose to file this action in the Western District of
Arkansas. The Complaint (Doc. 2) is eighty-eight pages long.
The Complaint actually appears to be a compilation of a
number of separate complaints. The first complaint is five
pages long and lists only the United States as the
Defendant-although there is an erroneous "et al."
notation. The first complaint purports to be asserting a
qui tam  claim under the False Claims Act and a
whistleblower claim under the Dodd-Frank Act for the purpose
of "generating] revenues for the Federal Government to
dramatically reduce the mounting $21 Trillion Federal Budget
Deficit. .. 70% for the Federal Government and 30% for the
Disabled Plaintiff." Id. at 4. Downey
alleges he has submitted 80, 000 pages of claims that were
denied. Id. He maintains that the denial of the
claims illegally destroyed five years of his work.
Id. He asserts that the "unjustified
Whistleblower claim denial recourse is to file suit."
second complaint starts on page six. (Doc. 2 at 6). Downey
alleges subject matter jurisdiction based on a violation of
the Eighth Amendment and a myriad of federal statutes.
Id. at 8-11. He also alleges subject matter
jurisdiction under various federal criminal statutes.
Id. at 11. Downey seeks damages in the amount of
"$486 Billion Revenues x 60% Walmart Foreign Products =
$291.6 Billion" plus treble damages for a total of
"$874.8 Billion Counts (45), 900M Disabled Plaintiff
Compensation, 30%, $262.71 Billion." Id. at 12.
complaint, or compilation of motions, starts on page
fourteen. (Doc. 2 at 14). Mark Downey and the Estate of
Virginia Downey are listed as Plaintiffs. Id. The
addition of the Estate of Virginia Downey as a plaintiff in
the case is apparently based on the alleged pain and
suffering Downey suffered when his submissions were denied
while he was caring for his terminally ill mother. The
Defendants are listed as: United States, Attorney General
William Barr; United States Attorney Richard W. Moore; and
Doug McMillion, the Chief Executive Officer of Wal-Mart.
Id. Thereafter, the pleading contains a motion to
quash sovereign immunity, a motion to accommodate the
disabled, a motion to expedite and seal, and a motion to
refer the criminal case to the United States Attorney.
Id. at 17. The motions are not separate documents
and instead just flow successively. See, e.g., Id.
fourth complaint starts on page twenty-five. (Doc. 2 at 25).
This complaint lists the same parties as the third complaint.
Downey first asserts that as a former federal forensic
scientist/technologist/programmer, he is qualified as an
industry expert and expert witness in a number of areas,
including the legal industry, federal and state law
enforcement, government procurement, and government
administration and systems. Id. at 26. In the area
of the fourth complaint where Downey lists the parties, he
states that the Defendant is the "retail company
Wal-Mart Corporation." Id. Downey next lists
the general counsels of the United States Government
Accountability Office (GAO), the Bureau of Fiscal Service,
the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission.
Id. at 27. Downey alleges all general counsels
unjustly denied his claims, failed to respond to his calls,
e-mails, and letters, and deliberately and unethically
applied a six-month statute of limitations to his claims.
Id. at 28. Downey alleges he is acting under
whistleblower programs with the Internal Revenue Service, the
Securities Exchange Commission, and the United States
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) "for qui
tarn, the False Claims Act and the Dodd Frank Act to recover
numerous massive cost-overruns, excessive spending,
delinquent accounts, fraud and undiscovered revenue
recovery." Id. at 29.
to Downey, he "worked for 5 years, 15-hours-a-day with
NO Compensation, resulting in 80, 000 pages; almost 600, 000
submissions." Id. at 30. Instead of the
government working with him, Downey maintains "the
entire Federal Government orchestrated a [W]ar decimate all
of his efforts to Balance the Federal Budget."
complaint begins at page thirty-three. In it, Downey informs
the Court that he believes the complaint will satisfy the
pleading rules and be decided on the merits. (Doc. 2 at
31-33). Downey maintains that almost 600, 000 of his
submissions were rejected. Id. at 37. He contends
this is "criminal" and the jury will be outraged.
Id. Downey sets forth in forty-five counts various
federal and state laws that have allegedly been violated in
connection with his submission of whistleblower claims.
Id. at 39-85.
a non-prisoner, has been given leave to proceed IFP. On
initial review, 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
is frivolous when 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 Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "The essential
function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is to give the opposing party fair notice of the
nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a general
indication of the type of litigation involved."
Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843,
848 (8th Cir. 2014)(internal quotation marks and citation
the Court bears in mind that when "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, ...