United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
KELVIN C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
COOL VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Kelvin C. Thompson 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.
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 is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable
basis in either law or fact." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). 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).
term "'frivolous,' when applied to a complaint,
embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also
the fanciful factual allegation." Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 328. 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.
brings this action against the Cool Valley Police Department.
He invokes this Court's federal question jurisdiction,
and states he brings his case pursuant to Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 241-242, 245, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (§ 1981), and 34 U.S.C.
complaint and in a supplement to the complaint, plaintiff
alleges that ever since he filed lawsuits against local
police departments and FBI agents, those defendants have
enlisted the help of the Cool Valley Police Department and
other municipal police departments to surveil and harass him.
He alleges that uniformed and undercover officers follow him
"24/7" and waste "millions of dollars a day in
government resources to follow me to Walmart just to see me
buy a loaf of bread or to Taco Bell just to see me do a #1 or
#2. Literally looking under stalls." Plaintiff estimates
that if this continues, $1.2 billion in taxpayer money could
be wasted, and he alleges that this wrongdoing is why
hundreds of thousands of crimes are unsolved. Specifically,
plaintiff writes: "It's because of situations like
mine where law enforcement is wasting taxpayers monies
watching a middle age 60 year old African American Male take
a dump or buy a hot dog at a hot dog stand. This while
horrendous crimes are occurring every 30 seconds, absolutely
also alleges that the defendant and other entities have
"enlisted operatives and thugs from in and out of the
state Yahweh members, Nation of Islam and masonic members to
harass me and disrupt my everyday life. They poison food,
steal mail and intentionally wreck my vehicles in an attempt
to kill or lame me." He writes: "Yes, I am saying
that these criminally corrupt law enforcement entities are
enlisting common criminals to help them harass, discriminate
against me and to violate my civil rights. These individuals
harass my family, slash my tires, steal my mail,
intentionally wreck my cars trying to kill or lame me and
even poison the food at grocery stores I cater to in an
attempt to poison me." He alleges that the defendant and
other entities are conspiring with "rogue thugs"
from Georgia, the Carolinas, New York, California, Alabama
and "especially Illinois," all of whom constantly
harass him. He alleges that "[a]ll these entities have
formed an alliance to destroy and violate my civil and human
rights to live without fear of death or any other harm."
The complaint and supplemental document continue in this
relief, plaintiff wants the Court to punish, fine, suspend,
terminate, and/or imprison the people who engaged in the
above-described behavior, and to award him "$100, 000 in
actual damages and $1, 000, 000 million in punitive
filing the complaint and supplemental document, plaintiff
filed a letter. Therein, plaintiff writes he noticed that
cases he filed regarding law enforcement were assigned to
Magistrate Judges. He writes: "I find this ironic and
almost impossible that randomly all these civil cases have
been assigned to Magistrate Judges. These powerful entities
with unlimited funds can't be afraid of an old man?
Finally, corruption and criminal activity at any level are
criminal acts and makes the culprits BLATANTLY CRIMINALS. A
TRILLION DOLLAR OPERATION with thousands of agents and
unlimited funding are still remarkably fundamentally and
systematically corrupt, racist and lack the morality and
integrity of great men. Have Ye no dignity or pride?"
(ECF No. 7/filed August 7, 2019) (emphasis in original).
complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it is frivolous. A pleading
is frivolous, and therefore subject to dismissal under §
1915(e), if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or
in fact." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. The Supreme
Court has held that federal courts should not sua sponte
dismiss an action commenced in forma pauperis if the facts
alleged are merely unlikely; however, such an action can be
dismissed if the plaintiffs allegations are found to be
"fanciful," "delusional," or
"fantastic," or if they "rise to the level of
the irrational or the wholly incredible."
Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33.
as set forth above, plaintiffs allegations are based upon
being constantly surveilled by law enforcement entities and
stalked and harassed by operatives and "rogue
thugs" who were enlisted by, and in a conspiracy with,
those entities. Considering the complaint as a whole, it
obviously rises "to the level of the irrational or the
wholly incredible," id, and the Court therefore
determines that the complaint is frivolous and subject to
summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Tooley v. Naplitano, 586 F.3d
1006, 1009-10 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (claims of constant
surveillance by government were "flimsier than doubtful
or questionable ...essentially ...