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. Clinton

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

March 14, 2019

DENISE A. DREIFUERST, Plaintiff,
v.
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON, 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. NO. 6, 7, 11, 17, 24), DENYING ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (DKT. NO. 9, 10, 12-14, 23, 25) AND DISMISSING CASE AS FRIVOLOUS

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         In 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.

         The 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).

         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. Motion to Proceed Without Paying 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 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).

         The 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.

         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 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 categories.

         The 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).

         The 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.

         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 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 ...


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.