United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of Gregory Issac
King for leave to proceed herein in forma pauperis. Having
reviewed the financial information submitted in support of
the motion, the Court has determined that plaintiff is unable
to pay the filing fee. The Court will therefore grant the
motion. In addition, based upon a review of the complaint,
the Court finds that it must be dismissed as factually
frivolous under Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
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, 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). An action is factually frivolous if the facts
alleged are "clearly baseless." Denton,
504 U.S. at 32-33. Allegations are clearly baseless if they
are "fanciful," "delusional," or
reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the
Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However,
even pro se complaints are required to allege facts
which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law.
Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging violation of his civil rights. Plaintiff filed
a complaint on July 20, 2018, against defendant Bruce Reiser
& Associates. Although difficult to decipher, plaintiffs
complaint and its exhibits state that plaintiff "would
like to file a relief request of abuse of access to our Eifee
Technology from members of the U.S. Military against myself
and family members which has caused great pain and
discomfort. This action has been going on for over 2 weeks
and is [illegible] with a range that covers the twin
cities." In addition to his original complaint,
plaintiff has filed four supplemental pleadings, as well as a
motion to add parties. In his supplemental pleadings,
plaintiff asserts that he has been the subject of "mail
plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's earlier
denial of plaintiff s request for emergency funding [Doc. #5]
to return to Minnesota. In his reconsideration motions, [Doc.
#10 and #12], plaintiff states that he wishes to return to
Minnesota to "dispute a dismissal of a harassment
case" against a parole officer and to allow for
"additional physical harm proof from CT imaging."
Court finds the factual allegations in the complaint to be
delusional and fanciful, and therefore clearly baseless.
See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33. The Court therefore
concludes that this action is factually frivolous, and will
dismiss it as such. See 28 U.S.C. §
as stated in the Order denying plaintiffs request for
emergency financial assistance, the Court has no jurisdiction
to grant plaintiff the relief he requested in his motion. The
federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. "They
possess only that power authorized by Constitution and
statue, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree."
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). Simply, the Court is without jurisdiction to
give plaintiff money to help him return to his home state. As
such, plaintiffs motions for reconsideration of the denial of
the request for emergency assistance will be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs complaint as well
as the supplements to plaintiffs complaint, are DISMISSED
without prejudice because they are factually frivolous. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motions for
reconsideration of the denial of his request for emergency
assistance [Doc. #10 and #12] are DENIED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this dismissal