Grant v. Harris et al, No. 5:2019cv00024 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 4/5/19. (kld)
Download PDF
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED ApR -5 2218 IN T H E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT CO U RT FO R TH E W E STERN D IST RICT O F W R GIN IA H ARRISON BU RG D IW SIO N JULA ,DUDLEM CL RK BY; DE W ILLTAM LEE G RAN T ,II, Plaintiff CivilAction N o.5:19-CV-24 V. By: H on.M ichaelF.U rbansld AU SA GRE G O RY K.H ARRIS,eta1., ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendants. M 'EM O R AN D U M O PIN IO N Proceecling gcq K ,plaindffW illiam Lee Grant,II,ftled the instantcom plaintagainst AssistantUnited States Attorney G regory K .H arris and the U nited States D epartm entof ' Defense,seekingleaveto proceedLq fotm a au eris.Forthereasonssetforthbelow,Gtant's appncadon to proceed iz fornaa au eds vdi be GRAN TED and llis complaintwitlbe DISM ISSED putsuantto 28U.S.C.j1915(e)(2)(B). 1. G rant inidally asks a series of quesdons in llis com plaint, such as TtW hat are the ramihcadonsoftheU nited StatesD epar% entofD efensenm tning adom esdcblack operadon to insdgate corrupdon in the federalgovernm ent?''and Tt W here shallM adon ffsuge''K night stand tdalforthe m lzrderofCluistophet ffBiggie Sm alls''W allace?''H e nextallegesthatthe Grant v. Harris et al Doc. 3 JointChiefsofStaffcreated him (Grant)in thebasementoftlaePentagonin 1990tobeffT'he Judge''astowheihertheVietnam W arconsdmtedwatcrimes.Healso com plainsaboutbeing retaliated againstforftling a civilrightsacéon in 2012,and being fotced to spend seven years asahomosexual.In total,hemakesfiftrfolzrdisjointedand fantasdcfacmalallegaéonsand Dockets.Justia.com seeksmonetarydamagesin theamountof$99trillion. II. GrantmovestoptoceedLq forma au eds,pursuantto 28U.S.C.j1915(a)(1).The courtwillgtant lnis modon to proceed i!z forma au eds.Howevet,after reviewing the com plaint,the court concludes that this acdon m ust be dism issed pursuant to 28 U .S.C. j1915(e)(2)7).Underthatstatute,disttictcourtshave adutyto screen inidalfllingsand disnlissacom plaintftled i!zform a au erisatany tim eifthecouttdete= inesthattheacdon ç<(i)isfdvolousormalicious;$)failstostateaclnim onwhichreliefmaybegranted;ortiiil seeksm onetary teliefagainstadefendantwho isim m une ftom such relief.'' W hile the courtconstruesptû . K filingslibezally,Erickson v.Pardus,551 U .S.89,94 . (2007)(quotingEstellev.Gamble,429U.S.97,104-05(1976)),Grant'scomplaintstatesno recognizable causes of acdon.Rather,itdescdbes fffantasdc or delusionalscenatios,clnim s withwhich fedetaldistrictjudgesarealltoofamiliar''Nietzkev.W ilbms,490U.S.319,328 (1989).Moteover,Granthasbeen recognized asa frequentftletofftivolouslitigadon in federalcourtsthroughoutthecountry.SeeG rantv.United StatesD e artm entoftheTreas , No.6:18-CV-291' ,2018W L 3748415(E.D.Tex.2018)(dismissingcompllintasbarredbyres judicataand asfdvolous,and noting thatGtanthad flled atleastseventeen complaintsin variousdisttictcotutsmakingsimilarallegadonstelated toahosleworkenvitonmentclnim). 111. Forthereasonsset10:th above,G rant'sapplication'to proceed itlfot'm apauperisis GRANTED andlniscomplaintisDISM ISSED pursuantto28U.S.C.j1915(e)(2)(B).Tlais m atterisST RICKEN from theacdve docketofthe court. 2 A n appropriate O rderwillbe entered. Entered: & 9 - &J-- z.z o?N 4 /N 4> /.W *c'Z-' M ichaelF.Utbanski ChiefUnited StatesDisttictludje 3