United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
T. Schultz, United States Magistrate Judge.
Grady Pederson did not pay the required filing fee for this
action, but instead applied for in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status. See ECF No. 2. That IFP
application is now before the Court and must be considered
before any other action may be taken in this matter.
review, the Court concludes that the IFP application cannot
be granted for two reasons. First, the application itself is
woefully incomplete. Pederson has not provided any
information whatsoever about his assets, income, expenses, or
anything else about his finances. See ECF No. 2 at
1-5. Without additional information, this Court cannot
conclude that Pederson qualifies financially for IFP status.
even if Pederson had provided sufficient financial
information from which to conclude that he qualifies
financially for IFP status, this Court would nevertheless
recommend that the IFP application be denied and that this
action be dismissed, as his complaint is frivolous. See
Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,
307-08 (1989) (“Statutory provisions may simply codify
existing rights or powers. Section 1915(d), for example,
authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or
malicious' action, but there is little doubt they would
have the power to do so even in the absence of this statutory
provision.”); Porter v. Fox, 99 F.3d 271, 273
(8th Cir. 1996) (noting that a district court may sua sponte
dismiss a frivolous complaint prior to service of process).
An action is frivolous if it lacks “an arguable basis
either in law or in fact” if it is based on an
“indisputably meritless legal theory” or factual
allegations that are so “fanciful, ”
“fantastic, ” or “delusional” as to
be “clearly baseless.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327-28 (1989); see also
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)
(explaining that courts may dismiss a claim as factually
frivolous “if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a
category encompassing allegations that are fanciful,
fantastic, and delusional”) (quotations and citations
complaint is largely incomprehensible. To the extent that
this Court can comprehend what Pederson is alleging at all,
it appears that Pederson is attempting to challenge the
validity of the requirement imposed by the State of Minnesota
that he register as a predatory offender; Pederson may also
be seeking to challenge a conviction incurred for failure to
register.Cf. State v. Pederson, No.
A14-1849, 2015 WL 5089026, at *1 (Minn.Ct.App. Aug. 31,
2015). This is necessarily speculative, however, as
Pederson's complaint fails to set forth in a readily
understandable manner what, exactly, he is challenging in
this litigation. For example, paragraph 7 of Pederson's
complaint which comprises the bulk of the factual allegations
being raised in this lawsuit reads as follows (sic
throughout, except where bracketed):
For the further acts of genocadal abuse and misuses of
judicial power to use civil commitment to enforce and abuse
judical due process, to circumnavigate the judical due
process and violate life limb double jeopardy and to give a
life sentence with due process of the law. To enforce charges
which were dismissed And to abuse ex post facto enforcement
on expired file charges of illegal search seizure phone #
[omitted]. Wire tappe survellence. Denial of all basic right
to life drove in to poverty.
at 4 [ECF No. 1].
garble is insufficient to put the defendants or the Court on
notice of the specific factual allegations being raised in
this action. Further, even taking each of these (conclusory)
allegations as true, Pederson provides no basis for this
Court to conclude that the specific defendants named to this
action the State of Minnesota, four Minnesota judicial
districts, and three Minnesota state judges are at fault for
the harms alleged in the complaint. There is no arguable basis
from the complaint for this lawsuit, against these
defendants, to go forward. Accordingly, it is hereby
recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice
and that the IFP application be denied.
on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous.
2. The application to proceed in forma pauperis of
plaintiff Grady Pederson [ECF No. 2] be DENIED.
Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an
order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not