The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RONALD DOUGLAS, )
Plaintiff,
v. No. 4:19-CV-2354 JAR
JOSH HAWLEY, et al., .
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Ronald Douglas, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action
against a multitude of defendants. After a review of plaintiffs financial affidavit, the Court will
grant plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, for the
reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss his complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(B).
. . Discussion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a Court must sua sponte dismiss an indigent plaintiff's
complaint or any portion thereof which (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or
in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Dismissals on this ground should only
be ordered when legal theories are “indisputably meritless,” or when the claims rely on factual
allegations that are “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). “Clearly
baseless” factual allegations include those that are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional.” Jd. at
32-33 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327). □
Plaintiff alleges a vast conspiracy relating to thirty-five (35) defendants in this action.!
- His original complaint numbers 1874 pages, while his amended, or supplemental complaint, is
forty (40) pages in length.” In essence, plaintiff alleges that defendants engaged in a conspiracy
in which bribes were solicited by the President of the United States and various government
agents and agencies “so that defendants would be able to violate the terms of their agreements
under state and federal constitutional laws without interference from the Justice Department.”
Plaintiff claims that by lying and denying that they were doing so, his rights to privacy were
invaded and he was unlawfully confined in mental wards.
Plaintiff seeks the recognition of the doctrines of collateral estoppel, the Federal Rules of
Evidence, an entry of preliminary injunction, the ability to admit hearsay, the suppression of
evidence, the eviction of the City of Moline Acres and the acknowledgement that he was forced
to work as a slave laborer at the Olivette 66 Service Center during the last twenty years. Plaintiff
also seeks appropriations for the “beaming of extremely low frequencies to the surfaces surface
of the Earth at the unwitting participant’s head causing him and his constituents to suffer
conspiratorial abuse of process against the pertinent defendants.”
1Plaintiff names the following as defendants in this action: Josh Hawley (Missouri State Attorney General); Charles
Rettig (IRS Commissioner); Kenneth Zellers (Acting Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue); William
Barr (United States Attorney General); The United States Tax Court; Rick Stevens (President of Christian Hospital);
At&T; Northwest; Dr. Seth Tilzer; United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; Mike
Parkson (Governor of Missouri); The Honorable Maura B. McShane; Jay Ashcroft (Director of the Missouri
Department of Commerce); Wilbur Ross (U.S. Secretary of Commerce); City of Moline Acres; Jennifer Tidball
(Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services); Betsy DeVos (U.S. Secretary of Education); Chris
Slinkard (Director of the Missouri Division of Employment Security); Ajit Pai (Commissioner of the Federal
Communications Commission); Brendan Carr; Anna Hui (Director of the Missouri Department of Labor and
Industrial Relations); Mark Stringer (Director of the Missouri Department of Mental Health); Andrew Saul (Acting □
Commissioner of Social Security Administration); Washington University Police Department; Warner L. Baxter
(Chairman of Ameren); Tyler Asher (President of Safeco Insurance); Andrew Wheeler (Director of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency); Edward Chu (Action Regional Administrator of the Missouri EPA); Elaine
Chao (U.S. Secretary of Transportation); Administrative Aide to the Chief of Police (Private Security); Janet L.
Schanzle (Security Armored Car & Its Insurers); and Missouri Board of Registration of the Healing Arts.
2 Plaintiff has also filed a document titled “Amended Medical Malpractice Complaint & Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment.” This document numbers 844 pages in length.
Plaintiff asserts he was the subject of multiple kidnappings from “defendant municipal
police departments” and that defendants “violated the [RICO statute]. . . that caused Douglas to
lose his parents, two jobs, other asserts and unlawfully coerced him into performing slave labor
at Olivette 66 Service Center.” Plaintiff further alleges that “these elite group of American
defendants during the last thirty-seven years conspired and committed the crime of second-
degree assault by their knowing attempt in the murder of Ronald Douglas by means of their
manipulation of organism living on the earth surface (“(DC’ neuronal codes or patterns) with a
steady-current satellite system and with no consent. With the intent of disclosing to all persons
within this electromagnetic field, ionospheric boundary and atmospheric cavity, of this satellite
system steady-current the contents of all of Ronald Douglas’ wire, oral, and electronic
communications (everything that he has been doing, saying and thinking during the last thirty-
seven (37) years has been disclosed to every person in the electromagnetic field, ionospheric
boundary and atmospheric cavity of the three dimensional orthogonal system of an earth orbiting
satellite's steady-current). Making Ronald Douglas and his constituency suffer (1), depression
(2), pain-induced aggression (3), escape (4), avoidance (5), sleep pattern (6), restricted activity
and (7), the hearing of voices .. .” Plaintiff seeks in the billions of dollars for compensatory and
punitive damages.
From the complaint and supporting documents, plaintiffs claims are clearly frivolous.
See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). Plaintiff provides no factual basis whatsoever
in support of his claims for espionage and conspiracy, which are patently absurd and
unsupported by any colorable legal theory. Thus, the Court finds that plaintiff s complaint is
frivolous and fails to state viable legal claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.
#2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to
issue upon the complaint the complaint is legally frivolous.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of porate [Doc.
#3] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment [Doc. #7]
is DENIED AS MOOT.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 20" day of November, 2019.
hee
ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
,