Brayon Jerome Williams v. United States of America and Donald Trump

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION BRAYON JEROME WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:26-cv-00004-JMD ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ) DONALD TRUMP, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Brayon Jerome Williams, a frequent pro se and in forma pauperis litigator in this Court, has filed an Amended Complaint against the United States of America and President Donald Trump, ECF 4, and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 9. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and finds he is unable to afford the $405 filing fee. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and will dismiss this case.

Background The Amended Complaint is largely incomprehensible. For example, Plaintiff alleges: I have been denied justice due to the armed forces of the Executive branch of the United States Government positioning citizens amongst the administration who appear to not be competent in the AMERICAN language that they have caused the terms of the law to be changed while securing executive behavior prohibited by law which has caused me to be a victim of trafficking, and genocide in Georgia, Michigan, and Missouri where in Missouri justice has been miscarried and the Executive branch has refused to pay the debt owed to myself compensated unto them by the United States, where a Judge Brent Powel combines with a clerk Betsy Ledgerwood, who claims her name is Pam Wagner, who the Executive branch and the armed forces of such a branch fails to administer law in order to protect the rights of the entirety, that causes my suffering here in Missouri 01/13/2026.

ECF 4 at 5 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff also alleges that he was arrested by the Kirksville, Missouri Police Department in 2019 and 2020. Id. He alleges that on those occasions he “had appeared to have not affected the law,” but was “held without due process” and prosecuted. Id. After filing the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff submitted additional documents from Missouri state court proceedings that are largely incomprehensible. ECF 5–7. Plaintiff does not explain how the materials relate to the Amended Complaint, and the connection is not apparent.

As relief, Plaintiff asks for “an Executive order that I be prescribed immunity from any of this sort of behavior, that such immunity be made law, and rights to the same financial stability as every member of the Executive branch, that such a right be made law, and a[n] enforcement unit be funded headed by me.” ECF 4 at 5. Plaintiff states that the “United States is in debt now $37.8 trillion, and I believe success in my pursuit would cause a clearing of such a debt.” Id. at 6.

The Court has also reviewed the unsigned original Complaint. ECF 1. It contains similar incomprehensible allegations and prayer for relief.

Discussion This Court must screen complaints filed in forma pauperis, and must dismiss any action that is frivolous, among other grounds. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The term “frivolous” encompasses “not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Id. Accordingly, the Court may dismiss “those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” id. at 327, including those allegations that are “fantastic” or “delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328). Although “[a]n in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed . . . simply because the [C]ourt finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely,” “a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Id. at 33. Just so here.

The Court has thoroughly reviewed and liberally construed the Amended Complaint and finds that it is frivolous. Plaintiff purports to sue the United States and President Trump for causing him to be a victim of trafficking and genocide, for failing to repay a debt, and for denying him justice through the actions of the Executive Branch. Plaintiff also refers to a judge and a clerk with no coherent basis for liability, and he alleges he was wrongfully arrested several years ago without articulating a cognizable claim. The relief Plaintiff seeks—immunity from unspecified conduct, the creation of new legal rights guaranteeing financial stability equivalent to members of the Executive Branch, and the establishment and funding of a governmental enforcement unit under his direction—is not grounded in any stated or apparent legal theory.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations and requested relief lack any arguable basis in law or in fact and are “clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The Court therefore deems the Amended Complaint frivolous and will dismiss this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

For the same reasons, the Court is “thoroughly convinced that there is no substantial question for review and that an appeal will be futile.” Higgins v. Steele, 195 F.2d 366, 369 (8th Cir. 1952).

Accordingly, the Court certifies that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.

See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 9, is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.

A separate order of dismissal will be entered with this Memorandum and Order. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith.

Dated this 27th day of April, 2026 bv \ tat JOSHUA M. DIVINE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF MISSOURI