United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
DOMINIQUE R. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
CORPORATION WORLDWIDE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff
Dominique R. Taylor for leave to commence this civil action
without prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket No.
2). Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds that it
should be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Additionally, for the reasons discussed below,
plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed as frivolous.
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 plaintiff's 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 brings this civil action against
“Corporation Worldwide, ” which seems to refer to
a number of different corporations. He alleges that these
corporations have plagiarized him, and have engaged in acts
of prejudice, racism, and theft. (Docket No. 1 at 5; Docket
No. 1-1 at 1).
claims that “Corporation[s] Worldwide” are
committing plagiarism by “stealing things from the
universe or cosmos by using spiritualism…[and] saying
it's theirs.” (Docket No. 1-1 at 1). In particular,
he accuses various video game manufacturers, such as
Nintendo, Guerilla, and Blizzard, of “looking [through]
the universes with spiritualism” and claiming things
that do not belong to them. Plaintiff alleges that these
corporations have plagiarized his life, his race, things that
he has gone through in life, his ideas, his emotions, his
actions, and his deeds.
to his complaint are pictures that appear to be screenshots
from various videogames. (Docket No. 1-1 at 2-3).
Plaintiff's complaint also consists of a number of
bizarre statements, such as his assertions that: “I am
called the Warlord because [of] my affinity to war…I
am righteous, I have a private army called The Homonculi, my
emotions are black and white. My ability is Armor. My kingdom
is empire. This has all been plagiarized.” (Docket No.
1-1 at 2).
seeks to stop “Corporation[s] Worldwide” from
continuing their plagiarizing. (Docket No. 1 at 4). He is
also seeking compensation.
brings this pro se civil action against “Corporation[s]
Worldwide” alleging that he has been plagiarized, among
other things. The allegations are frivolous and must be
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may dismiss a complaint as
frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
Martinez v. Turner, 977 F.2d 421, 423
(8th Cir. 1992). When dealing with 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 v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Such a dismissal encompasses
allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
“[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.”
the facts in plaintiff's complaint, such as they are,
clearly rise to the level of the irrational and wholly
incredible. As best the Court can tell, he alleges that
various corporations are using “spiritualism” to
steal his thoughts for use in videogames, as well as
animation, television, artwork, music, and books. These
claims have no basis in law or fact. Therefore, this action
must be dismissed. See Sikora v. Houston, 162 F.3d
1165, 1998 WL 390444, at *1 (8th Cir. 1998)
(unpublished opinion) (affirming district court dismissal of
complaint as “delusional and therefore frivolous”
where plaintiff alleged the “use of electro