United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
WILLIAM C. HUGHES, Plaintiff,
HOWARD HUGHES CORP., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
William C. Hughes for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
this civil action. Upon consideration of the motion and the
financial information provided in support, the Court
concludes that plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. The
motion will therefore be granted. Additionally, the Court
will 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 may be
granted. An action fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted 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
(2007). An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable
basis in either law or fact." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). The term
"'frivolous,' when applied to a complaint,
embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also
the fanciful factual allegation." Id. While
federal courts should not dismiss an action commenced in
forma pauperis if the facts alleged are merely unlikely, the
court can properly dismiss such an action if the plaintiffs
allegations are found to be clearly baseless. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). Allegations are
clearly baseless if they are "fanciful,"
"fantastic," or "delusional," or if they
"rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
brings this action against the Howard Hughes Corporation. In
the complaint, plaintiff states he was "just made aware
of the SUMMERLIN land acquisition and development in
1978," and next learned of Howard R. Hughes's six
Las Vegas casinos. He states that a tall thin man with a
mustache "astounded a family gathering by exiting with
poker game winnings measured in 25 cent coins." He
states that a man at his grandmother's house was Howard
R. Hughes, that the Hughes Corporation has profited by using
the Hughes name, and that "it is long past time for a
court-ordered rightly supervised DNA test to prove it is
Howard R. Hughes's son who has filed this case."
Plaintiff states he demands a jury trial and liquidation of
the Hughes Corporation's real estate investments, with
the funds made available to him. He also demands a majority
share of General Motors stock.
filing the complaint, plaintiff filed correspondence
containing statements about moving from the Mark Twain Hotel,
incoherent statements about Alice in Wonderland, and the
suggestion that the Court order the disclosure of the name of
a woman who, the previous night, identified herself as a
Secret Service agent.
carefully reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, the
Court concludes that none of the allegations the Court can
decipher state a plausible claim for relief. The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to formulate their
pleadings in an organized and comprehensible manner. Civil
plaintiffs are required to set out their alleged claims and
the facts supporting those claims in a simple, concise, and
direct manner. Evenpro se litigants are obligated to
plead specific facts and proper jurisdiction and abide by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See McNeil, 508
U.S. at 113. Here, plaintiff has failed to follow the
foregoing requirements. Although the Court is to give
plaintiffs complaint the benefit of a liberal construction,
the Court will not create facts or construct claims.
Additionally, the Court finds that plaintiffs allegations are
clearly baseless under Denton. For these reasons,
the Court will dismiss this action as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs amended motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 4) is
DENIED as moot.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate
order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this