# Gilberti PE v. Gore

> District Court, M.D. Tennessee · March 14, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10825593

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** March 14, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10825593

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

JOSEPH D. GILBERTI PE, A licensed )
Professional Engineer in the State of )
Florida, )
) No. 3:25-cv-00159
Plaintiff, )
) Judge Trauger
v. ) Magistrate Judge Holmes
)
AL GORE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Joseph D. Gilberti, a resident of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, filed this
complaint against “Al Gore” and hundreds of other named Defendants, including but not limited
to George W. Bush, Melania Trump, Majorie Stoneman Douglas High School, Rockefeller
Group International, Ohio State University, the United States Department of Transportation, The
Washington Post, and The Pentagon. (Doc. No. 1 at PageID# 1-2).
I. FILING FEE
Plaintiff submitted an Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP
Application”). (Doc. No. 2). According to Plaintiff’s IFP Application, his monthly income totals
$0; his spouse’s income totals $2400; he has no money in any bank accounts; his wife has $50 in
a checking account; their monthly expenses total over $3325; and he does not expect any major
changes to their monthly income or expenses in the next 12 months (Id.) Because his IFP
Application reflects that he lacks sufficient financial resources to pay the full filing fee without
undue hardship, the IFP Application (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk therefore is
DIRECTED to file the complaint in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
II. INITIAL SCREENING STANDARD
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the federal in forma pauperis statute, seeking to
“lower judicial access barriers to the indigent.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). In
doing so, however, “Congress recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are

assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from
filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’” Id. at 31 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To address this concern, Congress included subsection (e), which requires
sua sponte dismissal of an action upon certain determinations. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review his complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Benson v. O’Brian, 179 F.3d 1014, 1016 (6th Cir. 1999). Under
§ 1915(e), the Court is required to screen in forma pauperis complaints and dismiss any
complaint, or any portion thereof, if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F. 3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir.

2010).
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain: (1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the
relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although allegations in a pro se complaint are held to “less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972), “liberal construction . . . has limits.” Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th
Cir. 2001) (citing Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir. 1985). And pro se litigants are not
exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Brown v. Matauszak, 415
F. App’x 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011).
III. ALLEGED FACTS
The complaint is very difficult to understand. It appears to be the latest in Gilberti’s series
of substantially similar lawsuits alleging conspiracies to steal property in Sarasota County,
deprive him of the land’s natural resources, and poison the nation’s water supply, among other
conspiracies. See Gilberti v. Pentagon, No. 1:21-CV-00680, 2022 WL 3447162, at *4 (E.D. Va.

July 14, 2022); Gilberti v. Centers for Disease Control, No. 8:21- cv-954-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.
May 12, 2021); Gilberti v. Adrurra Group, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-282-FtM-38MRM (M.D. Fla. May
15, 2020); Gilberti v. Adrurra Group, Inc., No. 8:19-cv-2012-T-33AAS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2,
2019); Gilberti v. Fed. Rsrv. Sys., No. 19-CV-0738 (KBJ), 2019 WL 1901293, at *2 (D.D.C.
Apr. 29, 2019).
As an example, the first allegation of the complaint alleges that Plaintiff “was kidnapped
timed with the . . . Majorie Stoneman Douglas funding application just 17 days prior to the . . .
shooting . . . where 17 were shot and 17 were wounded in game tied to Smith-Mundt act where
Hollywood in Los Angeles sells stories to Government . . . . for their Propaganda agenda to
attack other nations . . . .” and that “The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, initiated days

after our World Resource find by Tampa Central command and this Florida Enterprise of
Terrorist civil servants and Developers tied to huge Corporations like Walt Disney owners,
Seminole Tribe Casinos, Federal Reserve Bank and corrupt Judges in land grabs and cohersion
[sic] on tax base grants for their Enterprise which includes a front called 72 Partners LLC and
BFSL Holdings LLC.” (Doc. No. 1 at PageID# 5).
As further examples, the complaint alleges that there has been “a State and National
attack by Florida leaders and CIA with the Bush family” to hide “PRIMARY WATER to TAPS
of Florida for 10yrs now with a barrage of attacks . . . .” (Id. at PageID# 6) (capitalization and
spacing in original); George W. Bush “has used the Carlton Family and 72 Partners members of
Notre Dame, Lee Pallardy and C1 bank/Ozark Bank Thomas Howze to pay off Judges, Clerks
and Commissioners from Tampa to South Florida and up in Washintong, Georgia and abroad . . .
.” (id. at PgaeID# 7); and “Defendants . . . teamed up against THE ENGINEER to steal a hidden

underground resource which [is] more valuable tha[n] Gold, in an effort tot hide and its
knowledge to find more like from THE AMERICAN PEOPLE; and keep cancer and diseases
rising in the region from Water supply being treated from polluted rivers and corporate dumping
at the Taps” (id. at PageID#12-13) (capitalization in original).
IV. SCREENING OF THE IN FORMA PAUPERIS COMPLAINT
After conducting the initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8 and cannot
survive screening under Section 1915(e)(2). The allegations set forth in the complaint are
frivolous and/or delusional. See Gilberti v. CIA, No. 25-536 (DWF/SGE) (Doc. No. 5) (D. Minn.
Feb. 18, 2025) (dismissing “nearly incomprehensible” complaint that is “plainly frivolous”);

Gilberti v. United Nations, No. 1:24-cv-06083-LTS (Doc. No. 19) (S.D.N.Y. January 13, 2025)
(denying Plaintiff’s request for mandamus relief and dismissing the action for failure to state a
claim; finding that defects in the complaint “cannot be cured with an amendment”).
While a complaint need not contain “magic words,” it must contain factual allegations
and make plausible the claim for relief. Plaintiff’s complaint does not. Moreover, “[t]his Court is
not ‘required to create [Plaintiff]’s claims for [him],’ because ‘[t]o do so would requir[e the]
courts to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff and would transform the
district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the
strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.’” Bell v. Tennessee, No. 1:11-cv-
14, 2012 WL 996560, at *9 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 22, 2012) (quoting Thompson v. A.J. Rose Mfg.
Co., 208 F.3d 215 (6th Cir. 2000) (bracket in original)).
V. CONCLUSION
As explained above, Plaintiffs in forma pauperis complaint is subject to dismissal as
frivolous and delusional under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). Accordingly, this action is hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Because an appeal would not be taken in good faith, Plaintiff is not certified to pursue an
appeal from this judgment in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
This is the final Order denying all relief in this case. The Clerk SHALL enter judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b).
It is so ORDERED. Uy
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10825593. Public record. Not legal advice.