Shortymacknifisent v. State of Minnesota For The Actions David S. Doty, The

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Archbishop Kingpimp               Case No. 24-CV-1283 (JMB/DLM)         
Shortymacknifisent, Professah,                                          

              Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                       

The State of Minnesota for the Actions                                  
David S. Doty, William Bolin, and Keith                                 
Ellison,                                                                

              Defendants.                                               

   This  matter  is  before  the  Court  on  Plaintiff  Archbishop  Kingpimp 
Shortymacknifisent’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).  (Doc. No. 2.)  For 
the  reasons  noted  below,  the  Court  denies  the  IFP  application  and  dismisses 
Shortymacknifisent’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) without prejudice.            
   Courts must deny an IFP application and dismiss the underlying legal action if a 
complaint is frivolous.  See 

(e)(2)(B)(i).  A case is frivolous when “it 
lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”  Neitzke v. Williams, 

 
(1989)); see also, e.g., Jones v. Norris, 

, 612 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Neitzke).  
This District’s courts routinely find that when a complaint has no factual allegations about 
a given defendant, it is factually frivolous as to that defendant.  See, e.g., Johnson v. 
Sullivan, No. 23-CV-2249 (KMM/LIB), 

, at *2 (D. Minn. Nov. 29, 
2023) (citing cases), R&R adopted, 

 (D. Minn. Feb. 2, 2024); Nelson v. 
Ellison, No. 23-CV-2122 (JRT/LIB), 

, at *3 (D. Minn. Oct. 27, 2023) 
(same), R&R adopted, 

 (D. Minn. Nov. 15, 2023).            

   The Complaint is a one-page document that appears to name three defendants: 
(1) the State of Minnesota, which Shortymacknifisent apparently wants held responsible 
for unspecified actions of U.S. District Judge David S. Doty; (2) William Bolin, the warden 
of Minnesota Correctional Facility–Stillwater, where Shortymacknifisent was recently 
confined; and (3) Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.  (Doc. No. 1 at 1.)  The text 
of the Complaint appears to be written using highly stylized and illegible script.  (See Doc. 

1.)  As best the Court can tell, the Complaint does not set forth under what law or legal 
theory  Shortymacknifisent  brings  this  lawsuit,  and  it  does  not  explain  what 
Shortymacknifisent believes each defendant did to violate the law.  As a result, the Court 
dismisses this action as frivolous and denies the IFP application.        

   Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that:                                                      
   1.   This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous under   
        

(e)(2)(B)(i).                                   
   2.   Plaintiff Archbishop Kingpimp Shortymacknifisent’s application to proceed 
        in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED.                       
   LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                 
Dated:  April 26, 2024                  /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan              
                                      Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan            
                                      United States District Court      

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Archbishop Kingpimp               Case No. 24-CV-1283 (JMB/DLM)         
Shortymacknifisent, Professah,                                          

              Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                       

The State of Minnesota for the Actions                                  
David S. Doty, William Bolin, and Keith                                 
Ellison,                                                                

              Defendants.                                               

   This  matter  is  before  the  Court  on  Plaintiff  Archbishop  Kingpimp 
Shortymacknifisent’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).  (Doc. No. 2.)  For 
the  reasons  noted  below,  the  Court  denies  the  IFP  application  and  dismisses 
Shortymacknifisent’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) without prejudice.            
   Courts must deny an IFP application and dismiss the underlying legal action if a 
complaint is frivolous.  See 

(e)(2)(B)(i).  A case is frivolous when “it 
lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”  Neitzke v. Williams, 

 
(1989)); see also, e.g., Jones v. Norris, 

, 612 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Neitzke).  
This District’s courts routinely find that when a complaint has no factual allegations about 
a given defendant, it is factually frivolous as to that defendant.  See, e.g., Johnson v. 
Sullivan, No. 23-CV-2249 (KMM/LIB), 

, at *2 (D. Minn. Nov. 29, 
2023) (citing cases), R&R adopted, 

 (D. Minn. Feb. 2, 2024); Nelson v. 
Ellison, No. 23-CV-2122 (JRT/LIB), 

, at *3 (D. Minn. Oct. 27, 2023) 
(same), R&R adopted, 

 (D. Minn. Nov. 15, 2023).            

   The Complaint is a one-page document that appears to name three defendants: 
(1) the State of Minnesota, which Shortymacknifisent apparently wants held responsible 
for unspecified actions of U.S. District Judge David S. Doty; (2) William Bolin, the warden 
of Minnesota Correctional Facility–Stillwater, where Shortymacknifisent was recently 
confined; and (3) Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.  (Doc. No. 1 at 1.)  The text 
of the Complaint appears to be written using highly stylized and illegible script.  (See Doc. 

1.)  As best the Court can tell, the Complaint does not set forth under what law or legal 
theory  Shortymacknifisent  brings  this  lawsuit,  and  it  does  not  explain  what 
Shortymacknifisent believes each defendant did to violate the law.  As a result, the Court 
dismisses this action as frivolous and denies the IFP application.        

   Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that:                                                      
   1.   This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous under   
        

(e)(2)(B)(i).                                   
   2.   Plaintiff Archbishop Kingpimp Shortymacknifisent’s application to proceed 
        in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED.                       
   LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                 
Dated:  April 26, 2024                  /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan              
                                      Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan            
                                      United States District Court