Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dreifuerst v. Obama

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

March 13, 2019

DENISE A. DREIFUERST, Plaintiff,
v.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, et al., Defendants.

         ORDER 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 FRIVOLOUS

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.

         The 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.

         Although 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.

         I. Plaintiff's Ability to Pay the Filing Fee

         The 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.

         While 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.

         II. Screening of the Plaintiff's Complaint

         Even 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.

         The 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).

         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). 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).

         A. Facts Alleged in the Complaint

         The 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 other ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.