McMath v. United States Immigration Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

SHEILA MCMATH, )

Plaintiff,

v. ; No. 4:22-CV-961-JAR

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION ;

DEPARTMENT, et al., )

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER |

This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Sheila McMath’s submission

of a civil complaint and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon consideration of

the motion and the financial information provided therein, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is

unable to pay the filing fee. The motion will therefore be granted. Additionally, as explained

below, the Court finds that the complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief

"may be granted, and will therefore dismiss this action at this time pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B).

Legal Standard

This Court is required to review a complaint filed in forma pauperis to determine whether

summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This Court must dismiss a complaint

or any portion of it that, inter alia, is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law

or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). The term “<frivolous,’ when applied to a

complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual

allegation.” Id. While federal courts should not dismiss an action commenced in forma pauperis

if the facts alleged are merely unlikely, the court can properly dismiss such an action if the

allegations in the complaint are found to be “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.

25, 32-33 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. 319). Allegations are clearly baseless if they are

“fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional,” or if they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly

incredible.” Jd. An action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not

plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

This Court liberally construes complaints filed by laypeople. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

97, 106 (1976). “Liberal construction” means that “if the essence of an allegation is discernible,”

the court should “construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be

considered within the proper legal framework.” Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir.

2015) (quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)). However, even pro se

complaints must allege facts that, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v.

Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). Federal courts are not required to assume facts

that are not alleged, Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15, nor are they required to interpret procedural rules □

so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508

US. 106, 113 (1993).

The Complaint

The complaint is handwritten on a Court-provided form. In the caption, Plaintiff

identified the defendants as “United States Immigration Department” and “Missouri Immigration

Department.” (ECF No. 1 at 1). Elsewhere in the complaint, Plaintiff indicates an intent to

name Commerce Bank as a defendant.

The complaint is a compilation of disjointed and nonsensical statements that defy rational

interpretation. Plaintiff invokes both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. In the section of

the form complaint provided for Plaintiff to list the specific federal statutes or constitutional

provisions at issue in this case, she wrote:

Board of Education deny education

Employment deny employment laws/rules (progress)

Proper Houses/Home without satellite images

Religion’s Freedom or Freedom of Religion

Private Information bank account/documents

Id. at3. In the section of the form complaint provided for Plaintiff to list the federal officials or

agencies involved in this case, she wrote:

St. Louis Civil Rights Enforcement Agency

Commerce Banks

Department of Labor

City Hall St. Louis Missouri

United States Representatives (Missouri)

Id. In the section of the form complaint provided for Plaintiff to identify the amount in

controversy, she wrote: “I have received unjust and mistreatment with disrespect for 25 years.

The amount 15 millions dollars.” Jd at 4.! In the section of the form complaint titled

“Statement of Claim,” Plaintiff wrote:

I had went to the Urban League for payment Gas Bill

I walked going to the bus stop hypnotize witchcraft trip/fell on the ground.

I had fell legs up with my dress, this was humiliate and indignant/disrespect.

I had went doctor sprained my knee and leg couldn’t sleep without pains walking

was problems

It happen July 2022 sidewalk Page/Martin Luther King Street

These secret organizations are sport gambler Mafia, Pimps, gang members

They are use me (Sheila McMath) for Good Luck Charm or Lucky Charm (I do

not gamble need Stop use Good Luck Charm)

If things are wrong for people. They want give me sufferings and punishment

without reasons need stop.

12.3 The text is quoted verbatim without correction of spelling or grammatical errors.

Id. at 5.2 In setting forth her prayer for relief, Plaintiff wrote:

I want court honor my court case Stop reject them.

The judge listen to my words talk with him or woman.

It have been too many long years need go away from my life.

I need restricted/restrained order if ] have troubles/problems.

Id? Plaintiff also provides a series of calculations, and indicates she seeks $72,161.00.

Provided with the complaint is an 80-page attachment that contains a variety of materials,

including bank statements, documents concerning potential employment, and correspondence

from Plaintiff addressed to various individuals, including the Vice President of the United States.

The statements in the correspondence are similar in nature to those in the complaint.

Since 2015, Plaintiff has filed six civil cases in this Court that were dismissed upon initial

review. See McMath v. Woodford et al., No. 4:15-cv-552-ERW (E.D. Mo. Apr. 8, 2015) (lack of

subject matter jurisdiction); McMath v. Campbell, et al., No. 4:15-cv-853-AGF (E.D. Mo. Jun. 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 vy. United States

Immigration Department, et al., No. 4:17-cv-150-JAR (E.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2017) (frivolity);

McMath vy. Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses, et al., No. 4:17-cv-2288-JAR (E.D. Mo. Sep. 8, 2017)

(frivolity); and McMath v. United States Immigration, et al., No. 4:20-cv-305-AGF (E.D. Mo.

Mar. 19, 2020) (frivolity and failure to state a claim).

Discussion

Despite having carefully reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, the Court

cannot discern Plaintiff's claims. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to

formulate their pleadings in an organized and comprehensible manner. Even pro se plaintiffs are

required to set out their claims and the supporting facts in a simple, concise, and direct manner.

See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Here, Plaintiff has not done so. While

this Court must liberally construe pro se filings, this Court will not construct claims or assume

facts that Plaintiff has not alleged. See Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15 (refusing to supply additional

facts or to construct a legal theory for the pro se plaintiff that assumed facts that had not been

pleaded). Additionally, Plaintiff's allegations are nonsensical, and indeed “rise to the level of the

irrational or wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. The Court therefore finds that

Plaintiff's allegations are clearly baseless as defined in Denton. The Court will therefore dismiss

this action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. A separate order of

dismissal will be entered herewith.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3)

is DENIED as moot.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in

good faith.

<—

Dated this SLL day of October, 2022.

a Key

JO “ROSS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE