United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge
November 12, 2019, the plaintiff, Shirley Deloras Nixon
Elliman (“Elliman”), filed a pro se
complaint and a petition to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Docket #1 and #2). Notwithstanding the
payment of any filing fee, the Court must dismiss a complaint
filed in forma pauperis if it raises claims that are
“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).
alleges that the U.S. Treasury Department has awarded her
$55, 000, 000.00 to be paid every four months for the rest of
her life, and that JP Morgan Chase Bank (the
“Bank”) has not been giving her that money.
(Docket #1 at 2). She also alleges that an unnamed Bank
employee has been spying on her. Id.
Elliman's allegation regarding her multi-million dollar
thrice-yearly payouts, it is fanciful to the point of
frivolity. A frivolous pleading warrants dismissal.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). The
term “frivolous . . . embraces not only the inarguable
legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual
allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). In considering whether a pleading is
frivolous, the court need not “accept without question
the truth of the plaintiff's allegations.”
Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. Rather, the court may
“pierce the veil of the complaint's factual
allegations” and consider whether the allegations are
“fanciful, ” “fantastic, ” or
“delusional.” Id. at 32-33 (citing
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327- 28). “As those
words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is
appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the
irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are
judicially noticeable facts available to contradict
them.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Elliman's
allegation regarding Treasury Department award is not just
implausible, but is also the sort of fanciful, fantastic, and
delusional claim that can be described only as frivolous. It
will be dismissed for that reason.
Court also has serious doubts about the truth of
Elliman's allegation regarding a snooping Bank employee.
But even in the unlikely event that this allegation had any
merit, it would not belong in this Court. Federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction, and may only hear cases in
two primary categories: 1) those raising issues of federal
law, known as “federal question” jurisdiction,
and 2) those between parties who are citizens of different
states and which involve an amount in controversy exceeding
$75, 000.00, known as “diversity” jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a).
Elliman's allegation of spying does not invoke either
form of jurisdiction. If this allegation is sufficient to
state any claim, it would not arise under federal law, and it
would not meet (nor has Elliman pled) the amount in
controversy threshold. This claim must also be dismissed.
both of Elliman's claims, and therefore her entire
complaint, must be dismissed without prejudice. Elliman's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied
the Court will conclude by noting that this is not the first
time Elliman has caused this District to expend resources
handling her unmeritorious litigation. She filed four other
cases in the past three years, all of which were dismissed
for frivolity, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of
prosecution, improper venue, or failure to state a claim.
See 17-CV-700-JPS (E.D. Wis.), 18-CV-365-WCG (E.D.
Wis.), 18-CV-366 (E.D. Wis.), and 18-CV-1577-PP (E.D. Wis.).
A common thread in all of Elliman's cases is fanciful
pleading. She is hereby warned that continued frivolous
litigation will result in monetary sanctions and/or a bar on
her ability to file cases in this District. See Bradley
v. Wis. Dep't of Children & Families, 715
Fed.Appx. 549, 550 (7th Cir. 2018), citing Support Sys.
Int'l v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).
This District is simply too overburdened to continue to spend
precious time and resources on Elliman's frivolous
IT IS ORDERED that this action be and the
same is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice;
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket #2)