United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
William Lee Grant, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in this civil action against the State of Illinois. After a
review of plaintiff s financial affidavit, the Court will
grant plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, for the reasons
set forth below, the Court will dismiss his complaint as
frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a Court must sua sponte
dismiss an indigent plaintiffs complaint or any portion
thereof which (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. A complaint is frivolous if "it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Dismissals on this
ground should only be ordered when legal theories are
"indisputably meritless," or when the claims rely
on factual allegations that are "clearly baseless."
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992).
"Clearly baseless" factual allegations include
those that are "fanciful," "fantastic,"
and "delusional." Id. at 32-33 (quoting
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327).
alleges a vast conspiracy in which he names the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Missile Defense Agency, the State
of Illinois, and the Special Collection Service as
defendants. Plaintiff asserts constitutional violations under
the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments of the
U.S. Constitution, styled as: "What are the
Ramifications of the DOD keeping Mr. Grant in Illinois for
nearly thirty (30) years under the threat of military
force?" Plaintiff complains that President Ronald Reagan
directed the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff "to create Mr. Grant to predict future nuclear
strikes." He further alleges that he was taken to
Springfield, Illinois, where he was "beaten; endure[d]
psychological warfare; and to be the U.S. Department of
Defense's witness to the 9/11 terrorist attacks,"
and was illegally surveilled by the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the District of Central Illinois." He further
alleges that the government surveillance resulted in
interference with his medical care and a false driving under
the influence charge and forced him to "act gay"
under threat of sexual violence. Plaintiff also asserts that
he worked for the State of Illinois, but his employment was
fraught with difficulties and ended in him
"blacklisted." Plaintiff makes vast allegations
against numerous government officials and agencies. He
alleges that he has been sexually assaulted by several people
at the direction of an Assistant U.S. Attorney. He also
alleges a variety of political and government conspiracy
theories citing numerous local, state, and federal government
officials and agencies, including the Central Intelligence
Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Missile Defense
Agency. Plaintiff also alleges a variety of celebrity and
international conspiracy theories including, but not limited
to, those surrounding British royalty, Suge Knight, O.J.
Simpson, President Bill Clinton and Kurt Cobain, and
discusses the genitals of several public figures. For relief,
plaintiff seeks $99 trillion.
the complaint and supporting documents, plaintiffs claims are
clearly frivolous. Plaintiff provides no factual basis
whatsoever in support of his claims for espionage and
conspiracy, which are patently absurd and unsupported by any
colorable legal theory. Indeed, this case appears to be part
of a pattern of abusive litigation tactics plaintiff has
engaged in all over the United States. Thus, the Court
finds that plaintiffs complaint is frivolous and fails to
state viable legal claims.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue
process or cause process to issue upon the complaint because
the complaint is legally frivolous.
separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum
The Court takes judicial notice that a
search of District Court filings from plaintiff returns 132
case filings. These filings feature the same or similar
defendants across the country, including the District Courts
of Alaska, Massachusetts, Tennessee, California, Colorado,
Hawaii, Virginia, Utah, Maryland, Florida, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, North Carolina, Rhode Island, the Virgin
Islands, Texas, District of Columbia, New York and Nebraska.
See, e.g., Grant, II v. U.S. Dept. of Defense eta!.,
No. 3:19-cv-00979 (S.D. Ill. 2019); Grant v. U.S. Dept.
of Defense, No. 3:19-cv-00332 (S.D. Ill. 2019);
Grant v. Office of the Illinois Governor, No.
3:19-cv-03025 (CD. Ill. 2019); Grant v. U.S. Department
of Defense et al, No. 3:19-cv-03020 (CD. 2019);
Grant v. Dunfordetal, No. 3:19-cv-03016 (CD. Ill.
2019); Grant v. Dunford et al, No. 3:19-cv-03019
(CD. Ill. 2019); Grant v. Mattis et al., No.
3:19-cv-03018 (CD. Ill. 2019); Grant v. Harris et
al, No. 3:19-cv-03017 (CD. Ill. 2019); Grant v.
Harris et al, No. 3:19-cv-03015 (CD. Ill. 2019);
Grant v. Mattis et al, No. 3:19-cv-03014 (CD. Ill.
2019); Grant v. U.S. Department of Defense et al,
No. 3:19-cv-03001 (CD. 2019); Grant v. U.S. Department of
Defense, No. 3:18-cv-03189 (CD. Ill. 2018); Grant v.
U.S. Department of Defense, No. 3:18-cv-03131 (CD. Ill.
2019); Grant v. U.S. Department of Transportation et
al, No. 3:18-cv-03130 (CD. Ill. 2018); Grant v.
Office of the Illinois Governor, No. 3:18-cv-03073 (CD.
Ill. 2018); Grant v. Illinois Department of Employment
Security, No. 3:18-cv-03054 (CD. Ill. 2018); Grant
v. Kabaker et al, No. 3:17-cv-03302 (CD. Ill. 2017);
Grant v. U.S. Department of Justice, No.
3:17-cv-03274 (CD. Ill. 2017); Grant, II v. U.S.
Department of Justice, No. 3:17-cv-01257 ...