United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court upon the motion of plaintiff
Jeremy Keith Ross for leave to proceed herein in forma
pauperis. The Court has reviewed the financial information
submitted in support, and will grant the motion. The Court
will also dismiss the complaint, without prejudice.
Standard on Initial Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss
a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. An action fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted if does not plead enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).
An action is factually frivolous if the facts alleged are
clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32-33 (1992) (factual allegations are “clearly
baseless” if they are “fanciful, ”
“delusional, ” or “fantastic.”).
Court is required to liberally construe a pro se complaint.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Nonetheless, the complaint must state a plausible claim for
relief, which requires the plaintiff to plead facts that
allow the Court to reasonably infer that the defendant is
liable for the alleged misconduct. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Martin v.
Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980) (even pro
se plaintiffs are required to allege facts which, if true,
state a claim for relief as a matter of law). Federal courts
are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged,
just because an additional factual allegation would have
formed a stronger complaint. Stone v. Harry, 364
F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004).
complaint, Mr. Ross names the United States of America as
defendant. He states he seeks right of review pursuant to 5
U.S.C. § 702. On the civil cover sheet filed with the
complaint, plaintiff describes his cause of action as
“Harassment.” (Docket No. 1, Attch. 3). Mr. Ross
did not complete the section of the form complaint that
required him to set forth his statement of claim. However, in
an attachment to the complaint entitled “Request for
Right of Review, ” he claims he fears for his life due
to “actions directly either from an agency or
contractor or both.” (Docket No. 1, Attch. 1). Mr. Ross
writes that he has been subjected to telecommunications,
manipulation, vehicle tampering, direct threats from unknown
persons, “unfamiliar electronical devices to normal
standards, ” verbal and physical threats, and vehicles
trying to run him off the road. Id. Mr. Ross does
not state the relief he seeks.
separately-filed letter titled “Evidence, ” Mr.
Ross describes a sting operation in which an individual
dressed in the uniform of a particular Jefferson County
Sheriff's Department officer, and drove the officer's
car while the officer hid in the back, in an attempted
set-up. (Docket No. 5). Mr. Ross states that they tried to
sell MDMA, but that he declined to participate. He states he
believes the action was taken at the direction of an unnamed
carefully reading and liberally construing the complaint, and
having considered Mr. Ross's supplemental filing, the
Court concludes that this case must be dismissed. Mr. Ross
names the United States of America as the sole defendant, and
states that he intends to proceed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
702. Under § 702, Congress has waived the defense of
sovereign immunity in certain suits brought against the
United States and federal agencies for equitable relief.
Raz v. Lee, 343 F.3d 936, 938 (8th Cir. 2003).
However, to the extent Mr. Ross seeks such relief against the
United States of America or any federal agency pursuant to
§ 702, his allegations fail to state a plausible claim
for relief under the standards dictated in Twombly
and Iqbal, in that he fails to set forth
non-conclusory allegations explaining how the United States
of America or any particular federal agency is liable for the
misconduct he alleges. In addition, the Court determines that
the complaint is factually frivolous because the allegations
therein are clearly baseless. Denton, 504 U.S. at
32-33 (clearly baseless allegations are those that are
fantastic, fanciful or delusional). The complaint must
therefore be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 2)
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate
order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to
Appoint Counsel (Docket No. 4) is DENIED as
IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this