Hauck-Adamson v. Blimpi et al, No. 3:2016cv00380 - Document 4 (W.D. Ky. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Upon initial screening of the complaint, the instant action will be dismissed. Signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson III. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (ERH)

Download PDF

Hauck-Adamson v. Blimpi et al Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CONSTANCE S. HAUCK-ADAMSON PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16CV-380-CRS BLIMPI et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Constance S. Hauck-Adamson filed this pro se action. She also filed an application to proceed without the prepayment of fees (DN 3), which is GRANTED. This matter is now before the Court on initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). Upon initial screening of the complaint, the instant action will be dismissed for the reasons that follow. I. Plaintiff filed the complaint on the Court’s general complaint form. She names two Defendants, Blimpi and “World Government.” As her statement of the claim, Plaintiff states the following: Rackateering, Child Abuse, Drugs Whiterace in World Genocide . . . Reading mind my, Espionage, Sabotage, Chemical Warfare <-> LGE, FCC Responsible for sophicated equipment on Blimp – Duplicates I Phone – Fax – computers etc Socialist is not part of Democracy in USA, Communist Party Blimpi & Sister, Human Trafficers, Body or Baby Parts Video Cameras Movies. In the relief section of the complaint form, where Plaintiff is to state what damages or other relief she is seeking, Plaintiff states, “Time Warner – State TV now Blimp TV independant, sindicate I call it. Communist Mafia to CIA Communist Cells as in Seria – Doctors Totaliterism Communist.” Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff writes other statements in the margins of the complaint form. For example, she states, “Devil worshipers black race mostly Netherlands. 6-12 trillion National Federation Set up Accidents Helium Amonia Nitrate Trains Black Market.” She also writes the following: “Trying to get back what was stolen.” She also states, “I am Communist Victim since 1989 Fathers Death Theives on Blimp – Gang Bangers 20-30 Billion Dollars Theft by Deception.” Finally, on the last page of the form, Plaintiff states as follows: 6 Typewritten Pgs to US Supreme Ct read by many Black Congressman Every phone call was answered by workforce of communist Party Human Trafficers – Liars – Thieves Copy Cats SS – I want new people to secure. [] I am a slave I am a hostage 6 Federal Petitions stolen All my mail Don’t have my car Title Pd cash. II. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must review the instant action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); McGore, 114 F.3d at 608-09. Upon review, the Court must dismiss a case at any time if it determines that an action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. In this case, the complaint contains no legal theories upon which a valid federal claim may rest, and the allegations are baseless. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the action on the basis of frivolousness. See Abner v. SBC (Ameritech), 86 F. App’x 958, 958-59 (6th Cir. 2004). In addition, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The complaint also fails to meet this basic pleading standard. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (indicating that the short and plain statement of claim must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests’”) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). For the foregoing reasons, the instant action will be dismissed by separate Order. Date: July 12, 2016 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4411.010 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.