United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM R. MORISSE, Plaintiff,
PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER, PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, SR., PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, and MILWAUKEE OUTLAWS, Defendants.
STADTMUELLER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
William R. Morisse (“Morisse”), proceeding
pro se, filed a complaint in this matter and a
petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Docket #2). In order to allow a plaintiff to proceed without
paying the filing fee, the Court must first decide whether
the plaintiff has the ability to pay the filing fee and, if
not, whether the lawsuit is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. §§
first question, Plaintiff avers that he is unmarried and has
no dependents. (Docket #2 at 1). He appears to earn $1, 350
per month in Social Security supplemental income.
Id. at 2. He claims his expenses include $1, 350 per
month in rent and $15 in other household expenses.
Id. at 2-3. While Plaintiff's motion is somewhat
incoherent, because it appears that his expenses exceed his
income, and because the case must be dismissed on other
grounds in any event, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
demonstrated that he cannot pay the $350 filing fee and $50
notwithstanding any filing fee, the Court must dismiss a
complaint or portion thereof if it has raised claims that are
legally “frivolous or malicious, ” that fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is legally
frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992);
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989);
Hutchinson ex rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 900
(7th Cir. 1997). The Court may dismiss a claim as frivolous
where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory
or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading
system, a plaintiff is required to provide a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to
relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). It is not necessary to
plead specific facts; rather, the plaintiff's statement
need only “give the defendant fair notice of what
the…claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 47 (1957)). However, a complaint that offers
“labels and conclusions” or “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). To state
a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, “that is plausible on its
face.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570). “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. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The complaint allegations
“must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
40-page complaint is, put generously, hard to parse.
Realistically, it is no more than a series of incoherent,
paranoid, fantastical ramblings. Much of the complaint
consists of Plaintiff copying down irrelevant federal and
local rules. See, e.g., (Docket #1 at 6-11). On
substance, Plaintiff's range of topics varies wildly from
one sentence to the next. In one instance, he appears to
claim that he was raped by a woman-who appears to be his
ex-wife-thirty-four years ago, which he asserts was a
violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Id. at 16. The next paragraph alleges that Plaintiff
was harassed and threatened by the Outlaws biker gang five
years ago. Id. at 16-17. Later on, he claims that
former President Barack Obama would not allow him to declare
bankruptcy despite his mounting debts. Id. at 17.
returns to the matter of his ex-wife, whom he alleges would
turn invisible and “hold a battery up to my nose,
” making him ill. Id. at 17- 19. Indeed, he
claims to have so many deleterious health conditions that, as
one item of relief, he requests that he be given a new,
21-year-old human body to inhabit. Id. at 2, 19.
Plaintiff next contends that the Outlaws gang and the other
Defendants-all former Presidents of the United States-have
stolen his identity and burglarized his apartment.
Id. at 23-24. He appears especially angry with
President Obama, whom he claims not only prevented him from
declaring bankruptcy but also “took the top of my skull
off and imparted a prob[e] reader, ” which would
transmit a signal to some unidentified person for an unknown
reason. Id. at 31.
Court need not catalog the remainder of the complaint's
allegations. This snapshot suffices to show that it is
unintelligible. Courts may dismiss claims based on
allegations that are “obviously and knowingly
false.” Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility,
302 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 2002); Edwards v.
Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 829-30 (7th Cir. 2007). Moreover,
a suit may be dismissed “because the facts alleged are
so. . .unbelievable, even though there has been no
evidentiary hearing to determine their truth or
falsity.” Gladney, 302 F.3d at 774.
“[N]o evidentiary hearing is required in a
prisoner's case (or anyone else's, for that matter)
when the factual allegations are incredible.”
Id. Plaintiff's allegations are undoubtedly
fantastic, delusional, and indecipherable. Denton,
504 U.S. at 32-33. Consequently, this case may not proceed.
Gladney, 302 F.3d at 775 (“[A] frivolous suit
does not engage the jurisdiction of the district
this is not Plaintiff's first foray into such deliria. He
has made nearly identical claims in two prior cases in this
Court, and each case was summarily dismissed. See Morisse
v. Obama, 15-CV-1427-LA (E.D. Wis.); Morisse v.
Clinton, 16-CV-87-JPS (E.D. Wis.). In a case involving
an inmate's paranoid fears of a prison-wide conspiracy to
murder him, the Seventh Circuit held that a district court
was “entitled to draw upon its familiarity with [the
litigant's] prior meritless litigation (again describing
sprawling conspiracies) to conclude that his complaint
consisted only of ‘claims describing fantastic or
delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district
judges are all too familiar.'” Walton v.
Walker, 364 F. App'x 256, 257 (7th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328
(1989)). So too, here, it should come as no surprise to
Plaintiff that his preposterous claims about invisible people
and Presidents breaking and entering his home should be
rejected yet again.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket #2)
be and the same is hereby GRANTED;
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same
is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous; and
COURT FURTHER CERTIFIES that any appeal from this
matter would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) unless Plaintiff ...