stating that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”
How later courts described this case
- stating that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”
- stating that court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SHEILA MCMATH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-cv-00305-AGF
)
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Sheila McMath for leave to
commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket No. 2). Having
reviewed the motion, the Court finds that it should be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Legal Standard on Initial Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To
state a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “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. at 678. Determining whether
a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679. The court must “accept as
true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir.
2016). See also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating
that court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required to “accept as true
any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).
When reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the benefit
of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal construction”
means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should construe the
plaintiff’s complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even pro se complaints
are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v.
Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th
Cir. 2004) (stating that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just
because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”). In addition,
affording a pro se complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that procedural
rules in ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
The Complaint
Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who brings this action against defendants “United States
Immigration” and “United States Police Department.” The complaint is handwritten on a Court-
provided form. Plaintiff has filled out the form in its entirety. However, the information she has
provided is confusing and consists mainly of seemingly-random statements.
Plaintiff asserts both federal question and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. In the section
of the form complaint to list specific federal statutes or constitutional provisions, plaintiff has
listed: “Bill of Rights,” “Human rights,” “security home,” and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Docket No. 1 at 3). In the section to list the federal
officials or agencies involved in her case, she has stated the following, in its entirety:
United States Homeland Security
Fail recognize United States need security terrorism
Cyber attacks Airplanes/cars
February 21-24, 2020 United States flying over my house 3:00 a.m. – 5.00
a.m.
Receive electricity shocks bedroom 7:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.
Police Dept. have fail investigate complaints
In the section to provide the amount in controversy, plaintiff provides, in its entirety:
1995-2020
25 years damage against human rights
Employment
Proper house
Education denied grant
Medical surgery denied given false reports
United States Transportation Department Airplanes/Cars Transportation
The amount is not issue controversy
(Docket No. 1 at 4). Similarly, in the “Statement of Claim” section, plaintiff asserts, in its entirety:
2013 – 2020 Employment
Library Math Tutor
U.S. Bank computer
City Hall court clerk
2014 – 2020 Proper house
Landlord will not repair sink, kitchen floors
He is manipulate not repair damages
2014 – 2020 Education
Child Development one class complete receive A.A. Degree
Additional classes for Accounting
Forest Park Community College denied grant
2017 – 2020 Barnes Jewish Hospital
November 2019 St. Marys Hospital
December 2019 remove microchips from body given false reports
(Docket No. 1 at 5). In the section for relief, plaintiff states that she wants to investigate why Forest
Park Community College denied her education. Further, she wants to know why Barnes Jewish
Hospital and St. Mary’s Hospital have given “false reports” regarding “microchips.”
Plaintiff is seeking $15,000,000 in damages.
Plaintiff’s Filing History
Plaintiff has filed five previous cases that have been dismissed on preservice review in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri: McMath v. Woodford et al., No.
4:15-cv-552-ERW (E.D. Mo. April 8, 2015) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction); McMath v.
Campbell, et al., No. 4:15-cv-853-AGF (E.D. Mo. June 9, 2015) (lack of subject matter
jurisdiction); McMath v. United States Immigration Department, et al., No. 4:15-cv-1860-JAR
(E.D. Mo. Dec. 18, 2015) (frivolity); McMath v. United States Immigration Department, et al.,
No. 4:17-cv-150-JAR (E.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2017) (frivolity); and McMath v. Christian Jehovah’s
Witnesses, et al., No. 4:17-cv-2288-JAR (E.D. Mo. Sept. 8, 2017) (frivolity). As noted above, three
of plaintiff’s five cases have been dismissed on the basis that they contained claims that were
delusional and based entirely in fantasy. The three cases dismissed for frivolity also included either
“United States Immigration Department” or “United States Immigration” as a defendant, as in the
instant case.
Discussion
Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who has filed a civil action against defendants “United States
Immigration” and “United States Police Department.” For the reasons discussed below, this action
will be dismissed without prejudice on the basis of frivolity and for failure to state a claim.
A. Frivolity
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it lacks an
arguable basis in law or fact. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); and Martinez v. Turner, 977 F.2d
421, 423 (8th Cir. 1992). When dealing with factual frivolity, courts are given “the unusual power
to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Such a dismissal
encompasses allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 32 (1992). “[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.” Id.
As shown above, plaintiff’s complaint contains very few factual allegations. The best the
Court can tell, plaintiff is complaining about the “United States flying over [her] house,” receiving
electric shocks in her bedroom, and receiving “false reports” regarding the “microchips” in her
body. These claims are irrational, wholly incredible, and have no basis in law or fact. Therefore,
this action must be dismissed as frivolous. See Sikora v. Houston, 162 F.3d 1165, 1998 WL
390444, at *1 (8th Cir. 1998) (unpublished opinion) (affirming district court dismissal of complaint
as “delusional and therefore frivolous” where plaintiff alleged the “use of electro staticmagnetic
pressure field devices that surround his body in pressure fields of varying degrees and frequencies”
and that “caused him to suffer various physical problems”).
B. Failure to State a Claim
Aside from being frivolous, plaintiff’s complaint also fails to state a claim. As noted above,
to avoid dismissal, plaintiff must state “a plausible claim for relief.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 679. “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.” Jd. at 678. Plaintiff
has not done this. The complaint contains no factual content creating a reasonable inference that
defendants are liable for misconduct. Indeed, plaintiff has not presented any factual allegations
against “United States Immigration” or “United States Police Department” whatsoever. Despite
being named as defendants in the case caption, neither are mentioned in the body of the complaint.
Therefore, plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
C. Motion to Appoint Counsel
Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Docket No. 3). The motion will be denied
as moot as this action is being dismissed on the basis of frivolity and for failure to state a claim.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Docket No. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel (Docket
No. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate order of
dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 19th day of March, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE