United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DENISE A. DREIFUERST, Plaintiff,
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, et al., Defendants.
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2), DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (DKT. NO. 4),
DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONSENT FORM (DKT. NO. 4), DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S PETITIONS AND REQUESTS (DKT. NOS. 6, 11, 18,
22, 26), DENYING ANY FURTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (DKT. NOS.
9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 25, 27) AND DISMISSING CASE AS
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
plaintiff, representing herself, filed a complaint on March
16, 2018, suing President Barack Obama and thirty-nine other
defendants, dkt. no. 1, along with a request to proceed
without prepaying the filing fee, dkt. No. 2. Three days
later, the plaintiff filed “amendments” to the
complaint. Dkt. No. 3. On March 21, 2018, the plaintiff filed
a motion asking the court to appoint a lawyer for her and
seeking an extension of time to file her consent form. Dkt.
No. 4. (She filed the consent form on April 5, 2018. Dkt. No.
5). Since then, the plaintiff has filed nineteen requests,
petitions, letters, proposed amendments or documents. Dkt.
Nos. 6, 7-13, 16-20, and 22-27. Judge Lynn Adelman denied the
plaintiff's request to consolidate this case with
Dreifuerst v. President William J. Clinton, et al.,
No. 18-cv-434 (E.D. Wis.) and with a case dismissed over
fifteen years ago, Dreifuerst v. City of Sheboygan Police
Dept., et al., No. 01-cv-1189 (E.D. Wis.). Dkt. No. 21.
the court finds that the plaintiff does not have enough money
to pay the filing fee, it will not allow her to proceed with
this case. The court dismisses the case as frivolous, denies
the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, denies
as moot her request for extension of time to file a
magistrate consent form, denies her various requests and
petitions and denies all requests for further amendments.
Plaintiff's Ability to Pay the Filing Fee
court may allow a litigant to proceed without prepayment of
the filing fees if two conditions are met: (1) the litigant
is unable to pay the filing fee; and (2) the case is not
frivolous or malicious, does not fail to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, and does not seek monetary
relief against a defendant that is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. §§1915(a) and (e)(2). The court finds
that the plaintiff does not have the sufficient income to pay
the filing fee. The plaintiff is single and unemployed. Dkt.
No. 2 at 1. She receives $827 each month in Social Security
benefits plus $56.76 from a pension, totaling $883.76 per
month. Id. at 2. She has $670 in a bank account but
does not own a vehicle or any other property of value.
Id. The plaintiff says that her expenses include
$50.04 per month for her cell phone bill and the cost of
food; she does not explain how much she spends on food.
Id. at 2-3. She says she has no other expenses
because of “kickbacks to Clinton/Obama.”
Id. at 3.
the plaintiff did not provide the court with enough
information to determine how much disposable income she has
each month, the court concludes from her limited and fixed
income, and the fact that she has no assets, that the
plaintiff cannot afford to pay the $350 filing fee and the
$50 administrative fee.
Screening of the Plaintiff's Complaint
when a court concludes that a plaintiff does not have enough
money to pay the filing fee, §1915(e)(2)(B) requires the
court to dismiss an unrepresented plaintiff's case filed
at any time if the court determines that the case “(i)
is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
District courts “screen” complaints filed by
unrepresented plaintiffs to decide whether they fall into any
of these categories.
federal notice pleading system requires a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that [she] is entitled
to relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff need
not plead specific facts, and her 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)). Even so,
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). “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 rise above a speculative level. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
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). At the screening stage, the court must weigh its
assessment of the unrepresented plaintiff's facts in
favor of the plaintiff. Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. That
said, a court may find an unrepresented plaintiff's
complaint factually frivolous if the facts are “clearly
baseless, ” including facts that are “fanciful,
” “fantastic, ” “delusional, ”
“irrational, ” “wholly incredible” or
“based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory.” Id. at 32-33 (quoting
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327).
Facts Alleged in the Complaint
plaintiff's complaint is filed on the five-page form the
Eastern District of Wisconsin provides to non-prisoners who
are filing without lawyers. The plaintiff's statement of
claim reads as follows:
President Obama wanted kickbacks. He also wanted to make sure
the democrats had their political pungents [sic] put in
various positions in the government. He used the military,
intelligence, police and other government resources at
Obama's disposal. I will list the research that Obama
wants kickbacks from. I will include the individuals,
corporations, universities, government elites and agencies
that Obama used to benefit from my extorted research. I will
state how they attacked, threatened, killed, blackmailed. I
will list each defendant and want them listed as a separate
defendant coming under the federal jurisdiction of U.S.
District Court vs. Denise A. Dreifuerst. I will include the
who, what, when, where, why. With each defendant provided, I
will state the restitution as well as stating that I think
these people (defendants under federal jurisdiction) should
be charged and prosecuted for abuse of power, criminal acts,
extortion, and organized crime activities. Institutions
prospering from the research obtained by the methods
described should also be charged and prosecuted and loose
[sic] their license and federal monies. I will also show that
this is a pattern done by the Democrats for political,
financial control, as well as eliminating their democratic
colleagues who may differ in opinion.
Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. For relief, the plaintiff asks
that charges be brought for corruption of federal laws. I am
showing a pattern of this organized crime. I will address
relief wanted at a later date as I have to absorb and process
the malicious acts taken against me and my family as well as