United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
KELVIN C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Kelvin
C. Thompson for leave to commence this civil action without
prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket No. 2). Having
reviewed the motion and the financial information submitted
in support, the Court finds that it should be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Additionally, for the
reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss this action
without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for
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. To state a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate a
plausible claim for relief, which is more than a "mere
possibility of misconduct." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). "A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw upon judicial experience
and common sense. Id. at 679. The court must
"accept as true the facts alleged, but not legal
conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements."
Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th
Cir. 2016). See also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing
LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2016)
(stating that court must accept factual allegations in
complaint as true, but is not required to "accept as
true any legal conclusion couched as a factual
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). A
"liberal construction" means that if the essence of
an allegation is discernible, the district court should
construe the plaintiffs complaint in a way that permits his
or her claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787
(8th Cir. 2015). 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. 1980). See also
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8thCir.
2004) (stating that federal courts are not required to
"assume facts that are not alleged, just because an
additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger
complaint"). In addition, affording a pro se complaint
the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that
procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be
interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508
U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
is a pro se litigant who has filed a civil action against the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He claims that
this Court's jurisdiction is derived from Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act; 18 U.S.C. § 241; 18 U.S.C. § 242;
18 U.S.C. § 245; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; the
Civil Rights Act of 1866; and the Age Discrimination Act.
(Docket No. 1 at 3-4).
states that he has not lived in Missouri in over ten years.
(Docket No. 1 at 6). When he arrived back in the state, he
"noticed a lot of [fraudulent] activity on [his] social
security account." He alleges that his Social Security
checks from June and July of 2019 have been missing. He has
reported these "discrepancies" to the Social
Security Administration "to no avail." Plaintiff
claims that beginning in June, "people impersonating
social security employees have committed wire fraud, mail
theft, identity theft" and have denied him his Social
Security benefits. He further claims that a "real"
Social Security employee told him that "these criminals
impersonated" Social Security employees and that they
"were pressured to commit these crimes by corrupt
federal agents." Plaintiff states that these unnamed,
unidentified individuals "were advised to submit a
[fraudulent] bank account that didn't exist, unlawfully
withhold [his] funds and commit other civil rights violations
and federal crimes."
11, 2019, plaintiff went to the United States District Court
building in St. Louis. He states that as soon as he walked
into the office of the Clerk of Court, a clerk named Beth
"was on a phone call with the FBI." Moments later,
he asserts, his case was improperly filed and
"shipped" to Cape Girardeau, Missouri. He states
that it never showed up in the system. When he came back to
the Clerk of Court on Friday to file another civil case, he
claims that the FBI "advised [Beth] not to file
2, 2019, plaintiff returned to the office of the Clerk of
Court, to ask why it was not filed. He was advised that Adobe
"was down all day." Then, Beth passed the case to
another clerk, who he alleges intentionally "left out
vital information." This was fixed when he threatened to
file a civil suit.
concludes his Statement of Claim by asserting that
"corrupt federal agents are discriminating against
[him], violating [his] civil right, committing other acts of
federal crimes and...acts of violence." He states that
"[t]his is a travesty [not] only for Missouri but for
supplement filed with the Court, plaintiff adds that he is in
fear of his safety and his family's safety every day.
(Docket No. 4). He states that he is certain that he is
"not the first, nor last person to be terrorized by
these individuals." Moreover, he states that St. Louis
and Missouri have "a history of corruption, violence and
injustice" that has caused suffering to many African
Americans and minorities.
seeks $1, 000, 000 in actual damages and $10, 000, 000 in
punitive damages to punish defendant and "deter future