explaining that even in a pro se case, federal courts need not “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that even in a pro se case, federal courts need not “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMIE SUE FORD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00812-SRC
)
DONALD BIG, )
)
Defendant. )
Memorandum and Order
In June 2024, self-represented Plaintiff Jamie Sue Ford filed suit alleging a bevy of
unusual facts. Alongside her complaint, she filed two duplicative motions seeking leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion for the appointment of counsel. Having reviewed
Ford’s first motion for leave to proceed IFP, the Court determines that she cannot pay the civil
filing fee, grants her motion, and denies her duplicative motion as moot. Then, on initial review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court deems the complaint frivolous and dismisses it with
prejudice. Finally, the Court denies Ford’s motion for the appointment of counsel as moot.
I. Background
Ford sued Donald Big using the Court’s civil complaint form and attached 11
handwritten pages containing additional factual allegations. Docs. 1, 1-1. Where the form seeks
information relating to jurisdiction, Ford appears to invoke federal question jurisdiction on the
basis that someone named Big “[r]obbed the Federal reserve” and “[h]is group is trying to kill”
Ford and her “2 kids and 4 grandbabies.” Doc. 1 at 3. Where the form invites the plaintiff to
“[l]ist the federal officials or federal agencies involved,” Ford wrote “Federal reserve Bank.” Id.
And where the form seeks information relating to diversity jurisdiction, Ford identifies herself
and Big as Missouri citizens and asserts an amount in controversy of “1 trillion” because “[h]e’s
been doing” a lot of “crimes against [her] with a group of people.” Id. at 4.
Ford does not, however, identify the defendant other than by the name “Donald Big.”
See docs. 1, 1-1. Where the form provides room for the plaintiff to state the facts supporting her
claims, Ford writes:
They been hurting me And my children for long time they are a sex And Drug
trAfficing group and a Human trafficing group I can prove everything I’ve stated.
This has got worse now they are stealing everything I own, My back knee, sholders
face, There trying to kill me for knowing About them Robbing FederAl reserve
they are the riches in the world illegAlly felonys I’ve wrote 10 pages about crimes
this group hAs done to me it inclosed as evidence I’m asking for the courts help
and it’ll help You cAtch this group Here’s NAme
Donald Big . . .
LAtrisha Cone . . .
Robert Cone . . .
Mechael McDonAld . . .
JAmes BurnhAm JR III . . .
Check New CArs, New houses, there moving around buying house DonAld Big is
for the group His Hacked disAbility and foodstAmps unemployement Millions with
his hacking federAl offenses[.]
Id. at 5.
In the attached pages, Ford adds that Big and his group are “using me and my kids and
grandbabies for body parts,” that they removed “things” from someone’s body, and “are putting
our body parts on her my [sic] spine[,] they changed her blood to mine O Blood hers AB” [sic].
Doc. 1-1 at 1. Ford alleges that Big and his group have, among other crimes, committed robbery
and murder, cloned people, and used shape shifters to cover up their crimes. Id. at 2–4. She
alleges the existence of an “Alien Board with powers” and a “teleportation device and time travel
devices and Alien weapons from Moon” [sic]. Id. at 5. She alleges that Big uses his computer
“to erase peoples Mind” [sic], that he and his group “stole weapons from Moon that are Alien
weapon [sic] and other device like time travel, teleportation device and ability device giving
them ability that a Shape Shifter” [sic], and that they “drink Shape Shifter Blood to get powers
too.” Id. at 5–6. In the remaining pages, Ford goes on to make similar allegations, largely in
incoherent, stream-of-consciousness fashion. See id. at 7–11.
For relief, Ford states:
I want Justice And protection agAinst these people listed and I want the value in all
stuff stole And I want them in Prison for life sentence for Murder, Attempted
Murder accessory to murder money laundrying[.]
Doc. 1 at 5.
II. Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a pro se complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which the Court can grant
relief. “[A] complaint . . . is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The term frivolous “embraces not only the
inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Id. Accordingly, the Court
may dismiss “those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” id. at 327, including
those “allegations that are ‘fanciful, fantastic, [or] delusional,’” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 32–33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328). Although “[a]n in forma pauperis
complaint may not be dismissed . . . simply because the [C]ourt finds the plaintiff’s allegations
unlikely,” “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. at 33.
When reviewing a pro se complaint under section 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the
benefit of a “liberal construction”—meaning that “if the essence of an allegation is
discernible . . . then the district 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) (alteration in original) (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. See Stone, 364 F.3d at 915 (explaining that even in a pro se case,
federal courts need not “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual
allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”). Finally, affording a pro se complaint the
benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that courts should interpret the procedural rules of
civil litigation “so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.” See McNeil v.
United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
III. Discussion
Having reviewed Ford’s complaint and given it the benefit of a “liberal construction,”
Solomon, 795 F.3d at 787 (quoting Stone, 364 F.3d at 914), the Court finds that Ford’s
allegations contain no claims over which the Court may exercise jurisdiction. Instead, the
complaint makes numerous “clearly baseless” allegations. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. As set forth
above, Ford seeks $1 trillion and other relief based on such allegations as that Big and others
stole her body parts, used shape-shifters and clones, stole alien weapons from the moon, and
obtained powers from drinking “Shape Shifter Blood.” See doc. 1-1. The Court finds Ford’s
allegations delusional, “ris[ing] to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible.” Denton, 504
U.S. at 33. The Court therefore deems Ford’s complaint “frivolous” because it “lacks an
arguable basis . . . in law or in fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.
Section 1915 provides that “the [C]ourt shall dismiss the case at any time if the [C]ourt
determines that... the action .. . is frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Accordingly, in
the light of its frivolity determination, the Court dismisses this case with prejudice.
IV. Certificate of appealability
In Part II above, the Court deemed Ford’s complaint frivolous because “it lacks an
arguable basis . . . in law or in fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. For the same reasons, the Court
“is thoroughly convinced that there is no substantial question for review and that an appeal will
be futile.” Higgins v. Steele, 195 F.2d 366, 369 (8th Cir. 1952). Accordingly, the Court certifies
that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
V. Conclusion
The Court finds that Ford cannot pay the filing fee, grants her first motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, doc. 2, waives the filing fee, and denies as moot Ford’s duplicative
motion, doc. 3. Next, the Court deems Ford’s complaint, doc. 1, frivolous, and dismisses this
case with prejudice. Finally, in the light of its frivolity determination, the Court denies Ford’s
motion for the appointment of counsel, doc. 4, as moot. A separate Judgment accompanies this
Memorandum and Order.
So ordered this 16th day of August 2024.
sur. CK
STEPHENR.CLARK □□
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE