United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
William Lee Grant, II seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in this civil action against the Central
Intelligence Agency ("CIA") and Special Collection
Service. After a review of plaintiffs 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. §
Standard on Initial Review
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).
action is similar to two separate actions plaintiff has filed
in this Court and actions plaintiff has filed across the
country since 2017. Plaintiff alleges a vast conspiracy in
which he names the CIA and the Special Collection Service as
defendants. Plaintiff asserts constitutional violations under
the Fourth, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution. He writes: "The Office
of the Secretary of Defense created Mr. Grant in the basement
of the pentagon in 1990. The Office of the Secretary of
Defense used joint special operations command lawyers to
engineer Mr. Grant's life to give cause." He then
states that the secretary of defense dropped him off with two
individuals in Springfield, Illinois to endure abuse and
"to be the U.S. Department of Defense's witness to
the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
then sets forth twelve pages of bare allegations in non
sequitur form. For example, he states that certain people
directed plaintiffs dentists and orthodontist to drill the
enamel off his teeth, and directed his optometrist to give
him lenses with an incorrect prescription. Plaintiff was
forced to stab someone, he was forced to "act gay"
for seven years to prevent the Office of the Secretary from
sending someone to rape him, and he was framed for driving
under the influence. He alleges he was illegally surveilled
by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Central
Illinois. Plaintiff also asserts that he worked for the State
of Illinois, but his employment was fraught with difficulties
and ended in him "blacklisted." He states he was
sexually assaulted by several people at the direction of a
government official. Plaintiff also alleges a variety of
celebrity and international conspiracy theories, and
speculates about personal details of some public figures. He
seeks $99 trillion in damages.
claims are based upon allegations of espionage and conspiracy
that are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional, or that rise to
the level of the irrational or wholly incredible. The Court
concludes that the allegations are clearly baseless as
defined in Denton. Additionally, this case appears
to be part of a pattern of abusive litigation that plaintiff
has recently engaged in all over the country. The Court will
therefore dismiss the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
[ECF No. 2]
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum