United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
JEFFREY L.G. JOHNSON and JOSEPH JOHNSON, Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD WEBBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the motions of plaintiffs
Jeffrey L.G. Johnson and Joseph Johnson for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis in this civil action. Upon consideration of
the motions and the financial information provided in
support, the Court concludes that plaintiffs are unable to
pay the filing fee. The motions will therefore be granted.
Additionally, the Court will dismiss the complaint.
Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis upon the determination that, inter alia, it
is frivolous or malicious. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 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 allegations
in the complaint are found to be “clearly
baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32-33 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. 319).
Allegations are clearly baseless if they are “fanciful,
” “fantastic, ” or “delusional,
” or if they “rise to the level of the irrational
or the wholly incredible.” Id.
instant action is similar to actions that one or both of
these plaintiffs previously filed and that this Court
dismissed pursuant to one of the grounds specified in 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In the instant complaint,
plaintiff Jeffrey L.G. Johnson purports to be the
“executor” of an estate, and plaintiff Joseph
Johnson purports to be the estate's “legal
proxy.” Plaintiffs name nearly 200 defendants, most of
whom are government officials. The defendants include United
States presidents, members of Congress, Attorneys General,
Supreme Court Justices, Judges of this Court, Judges of the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, officials from the
Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and the Central Intelligence Agency, state court judges,
administrative law judges, the Vatican, the Department of
Homeland Security, and many others. Some of the defendants
complaint spans 71 pages, and contains allegations concerning
various matters. For example, plaintiffs repeatedly complain
about the unfavorable outcomes of prior civil actions. They
also repeatedly refer to “Title III surveillance”
and “Title III spying” programs they allege
various defendants conspired to promote and/or conceal. In a
section of the complaint titled “SUMMARY, ”
The JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT accessories-after-the-fact 18 U.S.C.
S 3 dismissed as frivolous plaintiffs' complaint joining
Title III felony criminal admission, denied certiorari
review, or dismissed citing want of jurisdiction, and denied
plaintiff mandamus relief, circumvented the Supreme
Court's original jurisdiction in litigation involving a
state, because the courts did not want to reveal, just how
expansive the Title III spying program was, and, because
jurist [judicial colleagues] aided and abetted the commission
of criminal acts under 18 U.S.C. S 912 during court
proceedings by government employees [federal and state
(Docket No. 1 at 68) (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs also
express dissatisfaction with the outcome of a state probate
matter. They write: “State of Missouri probate
proceeding No. 3-87- 0974-P-D morphs into Title III
surveillance, eavesdropping, and interception program by the
United States and State of Missouri, with mitigating criminal
violations of human rights under international law, and
murder of a U.S. citizen by an employee of a Foreign City,
State [Vatican] whose sovereign immunity waived 28 U.S.C.A.
1601 et seq.” Id. at 52. The complaint
continues in this manner.
reviewed the complaint, the Court determines that the
allegations therein are “clearly baseless” under
the standard set forth in Neitzke and
Denton. Consequently, the Court will dismiss this
action as factually frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
have also filed a motion titled “Plaintiffs' Motion
for Recusal and Motion for Other Purposes, ” in which
they state they file their “motion for Recusal against
defendant United States Department of Justice.” (Docket
No. 2). The motion will be denied as moot.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Jeffrey
L.G. Johnson's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket No. 4) is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Joseph
Johnson's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Docket No. 3) is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is
DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Plaintiffs'
Motion for Recusal and Motion for Other Purposes”
(Docket No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this