United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN R. CLARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the submission by pro
se plaintiff “Bryan Keith Cottle & Divine King
Kingdom” of a civil complaint and an application to
proceed without prepaying court fees or costs. Upon
consideration of the application and the financial
information provided therein, the Court finds that plaintiff
is unable to pay the required filing fee. As such, the filing
fee will be waived in this matter. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). Additionally, for the reasons explained
below, the Court will dismiss the complaint because it is
frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
Legal Standard on Initial Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss
a complaint filed in forma pauperis (or without
prepayment of court fees and costs) if it is frivolous, is
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. To state a claim for relief, a
complaint must plead more than “legal
conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a
plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679.
“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 on its judicial experience and common sense.
Id. at 679.
action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The term
“frivolous, when applied to a complaint, embraces not
only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful
factual allegation.” Id. (internal quotations
omitted). 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 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
327). Allegations are clearly baseless if they are
“fanciful, ” “fantastic, ”
“delusional, ” or if they “rise to the
level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.”
Id. at 32-33.
reviewing a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915, the Court accepts the well-pled facts as true,
White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984),
and liberally construes the complaint. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); 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 (8th Cir. 2004) (refusing to supply
additional facts or to construct a legal theory for the
pro se plaintiff that assumed facts that had not
filed the instant complaint against this United States
District Court. He invokes this Court's federal question
jurisdiction and claims that this case involves “ALL
AMENDMENTS U.S. CONSTITUTION, DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE,
TREATY OF PARIS, TREATY OF VERSAILLES, MAGNA CARTA.”
Doc. 1 at 3. For the amount in controversy in this matter,
plaintiff states: “PAST DUE NEVER RECEIVED
ANYTHING.” Id. at 4.
to plaintiff, the United States “intentionally harassed
[him], intentionally allowed bounties on [him], intentionally
discriminated against [him] and failed to protect [his] Civil
Liberties.” Id. at 5. He claims that these
things happened in 1978 and resulted in injuries of
“inflamed memories.” Id. Plaintiff
describes what happened to him as follows:
I was born the Alpha, I was born Royalty-born Divine King
Kingdom meaning (God) owner, creator, protector of all
natural things meaning this world. I was born Chief Enforcer
of Divine Law meaning Supreme Law of Life (WORLD), meaning
only seat at High Table (Highest Court of Law). I was born
Kind of the zodiac science meaning Lion King of the jungle
head Astrologist, Doctor of Life, Zeus of the Galaxy. I was
born a devil hunter.
I was born Lord over the World meaning Ruler, Master. I was
born Royal African King by ancient pure DNA meaning original
inhabitants of Life, 1st generation Heir King of Africa, 1st
Heir (Son) DNA of Divine Godfather. I inherited Head of
African American Family mafia on my Grandfather death in 2007
I inherited (position) Lord of the federal Five Civilized
tribes in 2007 on my grandfather's death.
I was (Honored) Lord of the Federal Recognized Five Civilized
tribes and all federal and non federal tribes of the world
through Ritual Ceremony in 2017. I was born a U.S. citizen.
Id. For relief, plaintiff seeks custody of his
prince son, he wants all tribal assets released to him, and
he wants to be sole monarch over the United States. Plaintiff
also demands that “DONALD J TRUMP THE 45TH PRESIDENT
TERM BE ...