Grant v. Rumsfeld, No. 1:2021cv00377 - Document 6 (D.N.M. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Chief District Judge William P. Johnson. Related document(s): 5 Response to Order to Show Cause. (cmm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Grant v. Rumsfeld Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO WILLIAM LEE GRANT II, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:21-cv-00377-WJ-SMV DONALD HENRY RUMSFELD, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause, Doc. 5, filed June 2, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, who are or were officers and employees of the United States, violated Plaintiff's rights from his birth in 1990 through 2020. See Complaint, Doc. 1, filed April 23, 2021. The factual allegations indicate, among other things, that Plaintiff was required to work in the basement of the Pentagon from 1990 to 1992, has been unlawfully detained for 30 years, was required to act gay, had the enamel drilled off his teeth by a dentist, was "stripped" of his driver's license, had his cases in the Central District of Illinois improperly interfered with, and that Plaintiff "was genetically-engineered ... in 1990." Complaint at 3, 5, 14-15, 18, 22. Plaintiff seeks $99 trillion in damages. See Complaint at 22. A search on the PACER Case Locator using Plaintiff's name shows that Plaintiff has filed over 200 civil cases in United States Courts in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming during Dockets.Justia.com 2017 through 2020. The complaints in many of those cases contain factual allegations and assert claims similar to those in the Complaint in this case. Many of those cases have been dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, and several have been dismissed with prejudice which means Plaintiff is foreclosed from filing suit again on those claims. See, for example, No. 1:20cv01838 (D.D.C.); No. 0:2019cv02931 (D. Minn.); No. 2:19cv05607 (E.D. Penna.); No. 1:202cv00173 (D. Va.); No. 1:2019cv00137 (C.D. Ill.). United States Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar ordered Plaintiff to show cause: (i) why the Court should not dismiss this case because Plaintiff's claims have previously been dismissed as frivolous; and (ii) why the Court should not dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Order to Show Cause at 3, Doc. 4, filed May 12, 2021. In his Response to the Order to Show Cause Plaintiff states: (i) Plaintiff's "previous lawsuits were dismissed by Judges across the country at the direction of Six Known Members of the U.S. Department of Defense to force [Plaintiff] to refile his lawsuit in other jurisdictions;" (ii) Plaintiff's "complaint contains factual allegations pertaining to the unlawful and unconstitutional actions" of Defendants; (iii) Plaintiff's "complaint contains the necessary elements to bring suit;" and (iv) Plaintiff's "lawsuit has not been decided on the merits." The Court dismisses this case because Plaintiff has not shown cause: (i) why the Court should not dismiss this case because Plaintiff's claims have previously been dismissed as frivolous; and (ii) why the Court should not dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Although Plaintiff states his "lawsuit has not been decided on the merits," he does not explain how this case differs from his previous cases in other Districts alleging similar facts that have been dismissed with prejudice. Conclusory statements that the Complaint contains factual allegations 2 and the necessary elements to bring suit do not show that the Complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. ________________________________________ WILLIAM P. JOHNSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
