Jordan v. USA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION PRINCE TERRELL D. JORDAN AKA TRACY HALSELL, Case No. 1:22-cv-534 Plaintiff, Cole, J. vs. Litkovitz, M.J.

USA, et al., REPORT AND Defendants. RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, has filed a pro se civil complaint against the United States of America, “DOJ,” “AG,” President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Ohio, Atrium II. (Doc. 1-1; Doc. 1-7). By separate Order, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

This matter is now before the Court for a sua sponte review of the complaint to determine whether the complaint or any portion of it should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 § 804, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Screening of Complaint A. Legal Standard In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a “litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)).

To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328-29; see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The Court need not accept as true factual allegations that are “fantastic or delusional” in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).

Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71 (“dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to state a claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept all well- pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id. at 557. The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint Plaintiff has submitted four different versions of his complaint, which the Court will construe as one complaint. He alleges the following claims, verbatim: • $20 Trillion (twenty) verbal contract (Doc. 1-1 at PAGEID 7).

• Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden entered into a verbal contract with “me” the plaintiff making the statement that I would receive $20 Trillion Dollars. This was after initiation of a pursuit of $20 million which led many to become Catholic and to believe that mistreating gay people was wrong and dangerous because the Bible says judge in the same way you shall be judged and in the same measure & as racism occurs solely are gay people mistreated. This also caused gay people to see that God does not love them but is unhuman and jealous for us. (Doc. 1-5 at PAGEID 27).

• $20 Trillion Verbal Contract religion freedom. (Doc. 1-6 at PAGEID 31).

• $20 Trillion verbal contract (Doc. 1-7 at PAGEID 35).

As relief, plaintiff seeks: (1) “commit to $20 Trillion verbal contract” (Doc. 1-1 at PAGEID 7); (2) “Ensure that President Joe Biden & VP Kamala Harris take necessary steps in ensuring I receive or all was done to ensure I receive $20 Trillion” (Doc. 1-5 at PAGEID 28); (3) “commit to $20 Trillion” (Doc. 1-6 at PAGEID 32); and (4) “force commitment to verbal contract” (Doc.

1-7 at PAGEID 36).

C. Resolution Plaintiff's complaint provides no factual content or context from which the Court may reasonably infer that the defendants violated plaintiff's rights. /gbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Plaintiff's allegations are implausible and “wholly incredible” and lack an arguable basis in law and fact. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. Accordingly, the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice.

2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).

Date: 9/28/2022 Henn K Xethend Karen L. Litkovitz, Magistrate Judg United States District Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION PRINCE TERRELL D. JORDAN AKA TRACY HALSELL, Case No. 1:22-cv-534 Plaintiff, Cole, J. vs. Litkovitz, M.J.

USA, et al., Defendants.

NOTICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).