United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
KELVIN C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon plaintiff Kelvin C.
Thompson's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and submission of a civil complaint. 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 or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
among other reasons. 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).
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." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). 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 assume the
veracity of well-pleaded facts but need not accept as true
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements."
Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
Court must liberally construe complaints filed by laypeople.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). This
means that "if the essence of an allegation is
discernible," the court should "construe the
complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to
be considered within the proper legal framework."
Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.
2004)). However, even pro se complaints must 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). Federal courts are not required to assume facts that
are not alleged, Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15, nor are
they required to interpret procedural rules so as to excuse
mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil
v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113(1993).
brings this action against the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI"). In the complaint and in a
supplemental document, plaintiff alleges he filed numerous
cases in this Court "to establish proof of criminal
collusion, civil rights violations and conspiracy engineered
by FBI and assisted by local law enforcement." He
alleges a District Judge of this Court signed dismissal
orders in a case that was assigned to a Magistrate Judge. He
alleges some of his cases were dismissed contemporaneously
and/or shortly after he filed them, and that some orders
contained the same wording and cited the same reason for
dismissal. He concludes this proves "criminal collusion,
case tampering and civil rights violations" and
"criminal abuse of the justice system." He seeks
"$100, 000 actual and $1, 000, 000 dollars
noted above, a court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it is frivolous. A complaint is frivolous if it
lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Martinez v.
Turner, 977 F.2d 421, 423 (8th Cir. 1992). In the
context of factual frivolity, courts are given "the
unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's
factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 327. Factual contentions are clearly baseless if they
are fanciful, delusional or fantastic, and "a finding of
factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged
rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,
whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts
available to contradict them." Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
plaintiff alleges he is the target of an elaborate conspiracy
engineered by the FBI, and that the manner in which his
numerous and interrelated prior cases were handled proves
that. These allegations are clearly baseless under the
standard set forth in Neitzke and Denton. Therefore,
the Court concludes the complaint is subject to dismissal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i).
Court must also dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis
if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. When reviewing a complaint filed in forma pauperis,
a court must accept well-pleaded facts as true, and make all
reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor. Jones v.
Douglas Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 915 F.3d 498, 499
(8th Cir. 2019). However, the Court is "free to ignore
legal conclusions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted
inferences and sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of
factual allegations." Wiles v. Capitol Indem.
Corp. 280 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2002).
plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted against the FBI. Plaintiff merely offers his
unsupported conclusion that the FBI engineered a conspiracy
against him, and he complains about the manner in which his
cases were handled and implies that proves the
conspiracy's existence and the defendant's
culpability. However, this Court is free to ignore plaintiffs
unsupported conclusions, and will not draw unwarranted
inferences. See Id. Even pro se complaints must
allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a
matter of law. Martin, 623 F.2d at 1286. The Court
concludes that plaintiff has failed to plead facts permitting
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
alleged misconduct. Therefore, the complaint is also subject
to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii).
noted above, this case is one of 14 interrelated cases that
plaintiff has filed in forma pauperis in this Court since
July 11, 2019. Plaintiff has repeatedly alleged he is the
target of an elaborate conspiracy, and is being constantly
surveilled and harassed. All 13 of plaintiff s prior cases
were dismissed for one of the reasons set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e), and the case at bar will be dismissed for
such reasons as well. It is well settled in the Eighth
Circuit that this Court is "vested with the discretion
to impose sanctions upon a party under its inherent
disciplinary power." See Bass v. General Motors
Corp.,150 F.3d 842, 851 (8th Cir. 1998). This includes
the discretion to craft and impose sanctions to deter
litigants from engaging in "conduct which abuses the
judicial process." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501
U.S. 32, 43-45 (1991). These powers stem from ...