United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
CAMERON S. SHORES, Plaintiff,
TIMOTHY S. MILLER, TRISHA C. STEFANSKI, NICHOLAS FORLER, SHANNON R. DOUGHERTY, and ANTONIA T. MANANSALA, Defendants.
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Cameron S. Shores, an inmate at Jefferson County Jail, for
leave to commence this action without prepayment of the
filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon
consideration of the financial information provided with the
motion, the Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable
to pay any portion of the filing fee. As a result, plaintiff
will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Additionally, the Court has
reviewed the complaint and will dismiss it pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it is legally frivolous.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it
“lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989);
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). An
action is malicious if it is undertaken for the purpose of
harassing the named defendants and not for the purpose of
vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes,
656 F.Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D. N.C. 1987), aff'd
826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987). A complaint fails to state a
claim if it does not plead “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
brings this action for “trespass and trespass on the
case.” He alleges defendants “have begun a
simulated legal process under color of state law which has
deprived [him] of his rights to life, liberty,
property.” Plaintiff alleges a “State Trust
created a legal estate in [plaintiff], which acts as the
nexus to bring actions against this individual as if he were
a corporation instead of a male human being.” Plaintiff
also alleges defendants are committing treason and an act of
“mixed domestic war.” Plaintiff fired his
court-appointed attorney in his underlying criminal case, and
alleges the State of Missouri has no jurisdiction over him.
Finally, plaintiff alleges Fourth Amendment violations
arising out of a search of his home.
relief, plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that defendants
have no jurisdiction over him, and that he is exempt from
criminal charges. He seeks monetary damages of more than $26
cannot unilaterally bestow sovereign immunity upon himself.
See United States v. Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12, 15 (2d
Cir. 1984). Plaintiff's purported status as “sui
juris. Of his own right; possessing full social and civil
rights; not under any legal disability, or the power of
another, or guardianship. Having capacity to manage one's
own affairs; not under legal disability to act for one's
self” does not enable him to violate state or federal
laws without consequence. As a result, plaintiff's
allegations are legally frivolous. See United States v.
Hart, 701 F.2d 749, 750 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam);
see also United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228,
233 n.1 (11th Cir. 2013).
the Court notes that plaintiff has raised many of these
arguments in his pending criminal case, State v.
Shores, No. 17JE-CR01327-01 (Jefferson County). On
October 13, 2017, plaintiff filed in his criminal case a
“Cause of Action-Lack of Jurisdiction, Trespass and
Trespass on the Case.” On January 9, 2018, plaintiff
sent a cease and desist letter to all judicial officers in
Jefferson County Circuit Court stating that he is not a
United States citizen and that the court has no jurisdiction
Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court directed
federal courts to abstain from hearing cases where “the
action complained of constitutes the basis of an ongoing
state judicial proceeding, the proceedings implicate
important state interests, and an adequate opportunity exists
in the state proceedings to raise constitutional
challenges.” Harmon v. City of Kansas City,
Mo., 197 F.3d 321, 325 (8th Cir. 1999); see also
Fuller v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 1996).
While noting that plaintiff's case is legally frivolous,
the Court also concludes abstention is warranted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. [ECF No. 2]
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue
process or cause process to issue upon the complaint ...