Zermeno v. Easterbrook

District Court, N.D. Indiana

Zermeno v. Easterbrook

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

ERIC ZERMENO,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO.: 2:19-CV-312-TLS-JEM

STEVE EASTERBROOK,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER Eric Zermeno, without counsel, filed a Complaint seeking three billion dollars from Steve Easterbrook, Chief Executive Officer of McDonald’s. Zermeno alleges that since 1986, McDonald’s embarrasses their employees causing them to “pour out hatred [and] jealousy” [because they] could not reach my level of education . . . .” ECF 1 at 2. He alleges both employees and managers disrespect him and “nothing would stop them from [giving] me a bad vibe.” Id.1 Zermeno seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B)(i), “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous. . . .” Such is the case here as the facts alleged are “clearly baseless.” See Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25

, 31–33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319

(1989)); Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility,

302 F.3d 773, 774

(7th Cir. 2002); Lee v. Clinton,

209 F.3d 1025

(7th Cir. 2000). Therefore, this case will be dismissed. Although a plaintiff is

1 The Court takes judicial notice that Mr. Zermeno has filed eight other lawsuits in the last month in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, two of which are pending before the Undersigned: 2:19-CV-269-JVB-JPK, Zermeno v. Jordan, et al.; 2:19-CV-281-TLS-JPK, Zermeno v. Watson, et al.; 2:19-CV-299-TLS-JEM, Zermeno v. Hakett, et al.; 2:19-CV-302-JVB-JPK, Zermeno v. Saikawa, et al.; 2:19- CV-306-JVB-JPK, Zermeno v. France; 2:19-CV-307-JVB-APR, Zermeno v. Silver; 2:19-CV-308-PPS-JPK, Zermeno v. Carter; and 2:19-CV-316-JTM-JPK, Zermeno v. Ewing, et al. normally given the opportunity to file an amended complaint when a case is dismissed sua sponte, see Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

722 F.3d 1014, 1027

(7th Cir. 2013), that is unnecessary where the amendment would be futile, see Holland v. City of Gary,

503 F. App’x 476

, 477–78 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 329-30

). For these reasons, the Court:

(1) DENIES the in forma pauperis motion [ECF No. 2]; (2) DISMISSES this case as frivolous pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B)(i); and (3) CAUTIONS Eric Zermeno that, if he files another frivolous lawsuit, he may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted. SO ORDERED on August 23, 2019.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Reference

Status
Unknown