United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DENISE A. DREIFUERST, Plaintiff,
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON, 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. NO. 6, 7, 11,
17, 24), DENYING ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (DKT. NO. 9, 10,
12-14, 23, 25) AND DISMISSING CASE AS FRIVOLOUS
PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
2018, the plaintiff, representing herself, filed two lawsuits
in this court, suing a total of ninety-two defendants. The
court dismissed the first complaint as frivolous.
Dreifuerst v. Obama, et al., No. 18-cv-428 (E.D.
Wis.). This case suffers from the same defects.
plaintiff filed this complaint on March 19, 2018, suing
President William J. Clinton along with fifty-two other
defendants. Dkt. No. 1. She also filed a motion asking for
leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No.
2. The next day-March 20, 2018-the plaintiff filed an
“amendment.” Dkt. No. 3. The day after that, she
filed a motion asking the court to appoint counsel and asking
for an extension of time to file the magistrate judge consent
form. Dkt. No. 4. (She filed the consent form on April 5,
2018. Dkt. No. 5.) The plaintiff since has filed multiple
requests, petitions, proposed amendments, and letters (many
of them the same documents she filed in No. 18-cv-428).
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.
Motion to Proceed Without Paying 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 nor 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).
court finds that the plaintiff does not have 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. The plaintiff 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 a
court to dismiss an unrepresented plaintiff's case at any
time if the court determines that it “(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
federal notice pleading system requires a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that [he] 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).
court may dismiss a claim as 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 accept the complaint's factual
allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the plaintiff, the court can “pierce the veil
of the complaint's factual allegations” and need
not “accept without question the truth of the
plaintiff's allegations.” Denton, 504 U.S.
at 32. For example, the Supreme Court has explained that a
court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is
“clearly baseless, ” “fanciful, ”
“fantastic, ” “delusional, ”
“irrational, ” “wholly incredible, ”
or “based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory.” Id. at 32-33.
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 Clinton abused his presidential powers and
committed federal crimes to receive kickbacks from those he
(Clinton) served. It was not the American people. He
(Clinton) used the military, intelligence, police and other
governmental federal agents (agencies) as well as influential
democrats to build up the democrats, as well as his cronies,
power base by extortion, [research done by me . . . as
included in this claim] bombings, assassinations, [Kohler
threat; OK City bombing; Removal of Tecumseh Products from
WI; New York Twin Towers threat; Pentagon threat; Princess
Diana threat], organized acts of crime that was played out by
the defendants that I am including. I will list each
defendant and want them listed as coming under the
jurisdiction of the Federal U.S. District Court vs. Denise A.
Dreifuerst. These individuals, agents, educational
institutions, military could have used means at their
disposal to stop this organized crime spree. They didn't.
1994-1995 I had to get protection for Kennedy's, Kings,
Hoffa, and others as this act of aggression was a repeat of
the 1963-64 killing spree. [Back then they said it was
Russia, CIA, Malcolm X, King, Hoffa, LBJ and others.] The
killing spree was for patent material, start up corporations,
building up of the democrat base via these corporations,
educational institutions, etc. These educational institutions
should loose [sic] their license and federal monies.
This is a pattern done by the democrats for political,
financial, control; as well as eliminating their democratic
colleagues who may differ in opinion. Blood was shed.
Families lost members that were dear to them. These bombing
and assassinations were used to cover up the true nature of
control, power and financial gains, business start-ups by the
democrats. Meanwhile, each agency (federal) was left to deal
with the tragedy that they experienced. This included the
FBI, Military, England, etc. This belongs in the Federal
Court System. I want to press charges and prosecute each
actor involved in this organized crime spree.
Dkt. No. 1 at 3. The plaintiff marked the box indicating that
she is suing under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and is suing each
defendant individually, “but acting together as ...