The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
WALTER DAVID STOBBE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:21-cv-2073
v. Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
D ONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Walter David Stobbe, an Ohio resident who is proceeding pro se, brings this
action against President Donald J. Trump and his son Donald J. Trump Jr., as well as Wips.com
and employees Lukas Jan Marek, Jakub Kremank and Lukas Stibor. This matter is before the
Undersigned for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
1) and the initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. All judicial officers who
render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Furthermore, having performed an initial screen and for the reasons that follow, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1-1) as frivolous.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss the complaint,
or any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). “A claim is frivolous if it lacks ‘an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” Flores
v. U.S. Atty. Gen., No. 2:14-CV-84, 2014 WL 358460, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2014) (quoting
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). This occurs when “indisputably meritless” legal
theories underlie the complaint, or when a complaint relies on “fantastic or delusional” allegations.
Flores, 2014 WL 358460, at *2 (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327–28).
In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe it in Plaintiff’s favor, accept all well-
pleaded factual allegations as true, and evaluate whether it contains “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Yet,
a court is not required to accept factual allegations set forth in a complaint as true when such
factual allegations are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F. App’x
427, 429–30 (6th Cir. 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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
556). In sum, although pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972), “basic pleading essentials” are still required. Wells v. Brown, 891 F. 2d 591, 594
(6th Cir. 1989).
II. DISCUSSION
The central allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint is that President Donald J. Trump, aided by
the other Defendants, undertook a campaign of online harassment and cyber attacks against
Plaintiff in retaliation for him voting for Joseph R. Biden in the 2020 election. (See generally Doc.
1-1). Plaintiff does not specifically assert a cause of action under any statute, and seeks monetary
damages surpassing $100,000,000,000.00. (Id. at 1). Ultimately, the Complaint simply contains
a wide range of unintelligible accusations:
Defendant Trump was on the computer with cookies from the whitehouse.gov.
When Plaintiff discovered Trump and wips.com were on the computer, and the
attacks continued, Plaintiff made the comment in the URL Bar as follows:
“wips.com are going to get it, and so is the a*s in Washington.” Trump responded
“well, the a*s from Washington is here.” . . . Defendants Donald J. Trump and
Donald J. Trump, Jr. were there embellishing the attacks as observers.
(Id. at 2).
On July 24, 2020, wips.com harass[ed] Plaintiff daily by calling the house
repeatedly and changing passwords on every account they know of, Apple, Social
Security, Gmail and Yahoo mail.
(Id. at 6).
[They] continue[] to harass Plaintiff and housemates by calling the house constantly
and trying to vandalize everything in their sights. If Plaintiff watches TV, every
evening prior to retiring, Plaintiff must unplug the TV and Cable Box for fear that
they will destroy more equipment. Defendant wips.com also sends very loud
clicking sounds. They cannot successfully kill the SONY Bravia but continue in
earnest to do also.
(Id. at 7).
At base, Plaintiff’s Complaint provides insufficient factual content or context from which
the Court could reasonably infer that Defendants violated his rights. Accordingly, he has failed to
satisfy the basic federal pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8(a). Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Moreover, these allegations are so nonsensical as to render his Complaint frivolous. As detailed
above, a claim is frivolous if it lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S.
at 325. The former occurs when “indisputably meritless” legal theories underlie the complaint,
and the latter when it relies on “fantastic or delusional” allegations. Id. at 327–28. This Court is
not required to accept the factual allegations set forth in a complaint as true when such factual
allegations are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz, 325 F. App’x at 429–30 (citing
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)).
Ultimately, Plaintiff’s allegations “constitute the sort of patently insubstantial claims” that
deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C.
Cir. 2009). Because Plaintiff’s Complaint is premised on such incomprehensible allegations, the
Undersigned finds he has failed to state a plausible claim for relief, and it is recommended that
this action be dismissed as frivolous. See Flores, 2014 WL 358460, at *3.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Undersigned GRANTS the Motion for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 1) and RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. 1-1) as frivolous.
Procedure on Objections
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting
authority for the objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit
this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The parties are further advised
that, if they intend to file an appeal of any adverse decision, they may submit arguments in any
objections filed, regarding whether a certificate of appealability should issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: May 6, 2021 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE