UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

JAMIE LYNN RUBOTTOM- ) LANGENECKERT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00104-RHH ) BILL M. SEEK, et al. ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on self-represented plaintiff Jamie Lynn Rubottom- Langeneckert’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs, which will be granted. Additionally, for the reasons stated below, this matter will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Legal Standard on Initial Review This Court is required to review a complaint filed in forma pauperis, and must dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

(e)(2). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). Although a plaintiff need not allege facts in painstaking detail, the facts alleged “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly,

. The Complaint Plaintiff’s complaint is incomprehensible and largely illegible. As best the Court can tell,

Plaintiff’s statement of claim is as follows: Supra—a code word here, it would be incomplete name of party, vocation; person liability interest due to the excessive amount of persons on vacation, health legal [illegible] status and whore practices prohibited, did such over a systemic broadband case of [illegible] issue where the relentless, persistent, re [illegible] pursuit is [illegible] I am being denied full order of civil protection rights land and liberties for self and 4 co-claimants, my children, whereby both dads agree, kids should be with mom. [Illegible] the AC case lead appeal to USSC in ED102031 record its rallied up consequential appeals as I sat at home under intense conditions of violative and isolated [illegible] where damages will always echo, as that [illegible] upon my children by primary educators in R-U social welfare investigation that holds acts of reprisal to date of [illegible]

ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff has handwritten annotations on every page of the complaint, nearly covering the margins of the paper with illegible notes. Discussion Although the Court is to construe plaintiff’s complaint liberally on initial review, plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any well-pleaded facts that demonstrate any plausible claims for relief against defendants. An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). An action is factually frivolous if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless”; alleged facts are clearly baseless if they are “fanciful,” “delusional,” or “fantastic.” Denton v. Hernandez,

, 32–33 (1992). The Court finds plaintiff’s complaint incomprehensible and lacking an arguable basis in either law or fact. It will dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.! Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs is GRANTED. [ECF No. 2] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See

(e)(2)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED as moot. [ECF No. 3] An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Dated this 28™ day of February, 2025.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' To the extent that plaintiff might be attempting to relitigate Missouri state court judgments against her, these claims would be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,

(2005) (“injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments”). -3-