United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 2); (2) SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND
(3) CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL CANNOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
William Lee Grant, II is “is a serial filer of
frivolous litigation in various federal courts across the
country.” Grant v. U.S. Dep.'t of
Transportation, 2019 WL 1009408, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan.
28, 2019), report and recommendation adopted at 2019
WL 1003641 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2019). “The vast majority
of [these] cases [of which the Court is aware] have been
dismissed as frivolous.” Id. See also
Grant v. Harris, 2019 WL 1510008, at *1 (W.D. Va. Apr.
5, 2019) (“Grant has been recognized as a frequent
filer of frivolous litigation in federal courts throughout
the country”); Grant v. United States Dep.'t of
Defense, 770 Fed.Appx. 121, 122 (4th Cir. 2019)
(dismissing appeals as frivolous, sanctioning Grant
“for filing frivolous appeals, ” and
“enjoin[ing] him from filing any further actions in
this court unless he pays the sanctions and a district court
finds that the action is not frivolous”). This is another
action, Grant alleges, among other things, that:
â¢ President Ronald Reagan
“directed” the Secretary of Defense to
“create” Grant in order “to predict future
â¢ The Department of Defense “kept Mr.
Grant in Illinois for nearly thirty (30) years under threat
of military threat”;
â¢ “Hillary Rodham Clinton killed Vince
â¢ “Courtney Love killed Kurt
â¢ “Phillip Mountbatten ordered the
assassination of Diana, Princess of Wales”; and
â¢ “The Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) killed “John F. Kennedy.”
(Compl., ECF No. 1.) For these alleged wrongful actions,
Grant seeks “$99 trillion in damages.”
(Id. at ¶82, PageID.10.) Grant has also filed
an application to proceed in forma pauperis and
without the prepayment of fees or costs in this action.
(See App., ECF No. 2.)
to proceed without the prepayment of fees or costs are
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). That statute
provides that a federal court “may authorize the
commencement ... of any suit, action, or proceeding... by a
person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of
all assets ... that the person is unable to pay such
fees....” Id. The Court has reviewed
Grant's application and is satisfied that the prepayment
of the filing fee would cause him an undue financial harm.
The Court therefore GRANTS Grant's
application and permits him to file the Complaint without
prepaying the filing fee.
plaintiff is allowed to proceed without the prepayment of
fees or costs, the Court is required to screen the complaint
and dismiss it if it (i) asserts frivolous or malicious
claims, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, and/or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). A complaint is
frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
In addition, while the Court must liberally construe
documents filed by a pro se plaintiff, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a complaint
filed by such a plaintiff must nonetheless plead sufficient
specific factual allegations, and not just legal conclusions,
in support of each claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678-679 (2009); see also Hill v. Lappin,
630 F.3d 468, 470-471 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the
dismissal standard of Iqbal applies to a Court's
review of a complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure
to state a claim). The Court will therefore dismiss a
complaint that does not state a “plausible claim for
relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Court has carefully reviewed Grant's Complaint and
concludes that it is both frivolous and fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. As one judge recently
explained when reviewing a nearly identical Complaint that
Grant had filed:
Mr. Grant's pleading contains a host of fanciful
accusations. These range from individuals directing his
dentist to “drill the enamel off” of his teeth,
forcing Mr. Grant “to stab Dr. Grant” his father
and to “act gay for more than seven years”, to
the State of Illinois denying his prior civil rights
complaint and retaliating against him. Other accusations
include Dick Cheney lobbying for the invasion of Iraq and
profiting off the war in Iraq. And, other claims of Hillary
Clinton killing Vince Foster, O.J. Simpson being guilty of
killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) killing John F. Kennedy.
In short, Mr. Grant's complaint is frivolous.
There is no interpretation of these assertions, along with
the cadre of others he makes, that even under the most
liberal construction possibly afforded a pro ...