Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grant v. Central Intelligence Agency

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

November 21, 2019

WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II, Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants.

          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 FAITH

          MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff 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”).[1] This is another such case.

         In this action, Grant alleges, among other things, that:

• President Ronald Reagan “directed” the Secretary of Defense to “create” Grant in order “to predict future nuclear attacks”;
• The Department of Defense “kept Mr. Grant in Illinois for nearly thirty (30) years under threat of military threat”;
• “Hillary Rodham Clinton killed Vince Foster”;
• “Courtney Love killed Kurt Cobain”;
• “Phillip Mountbatten ordered the assassination of Diana, Princess of Wales”; and
• “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.)

         Applications 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.

         When a 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.

         The 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.