United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
T. Schultz, United States Magistrate Judge.
Dannez Hunter did not pay the filing fee for this action, but
instead applied for in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status. See Docket No. 2. That
IFP application is now before the Court and must be reviewed
before any other action may be taken in this matter.
review of the IFP application and accompanying materials, the
Court concludes that Hunter qualifies financially for IFP
status. That said, an IFP application will be denied, and a
case dismissed, where an IFP applicant submits a complaint
that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Atkinson v. Bohn, 91
F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Carter v.
Schafer, 273 Fed. App'x 581, 582 (8th Cir. 2008)
(per curiam) (“[C]ontrary to plaintiffs' arguments
on appeal, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply
to all persons proceeding IFP and are not limited to prisoner
suits, and the provisions allow dismissal without
service.”). Pro se complaints are to be construed
liberally, but they still must allege sufficient facts to
support the claims advanced. See Stone v. Harry, 364
F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).
action cannot go forward for two reasons. First, the
complaint is overlong. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that a complaint include “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” “The words
‘short and plain' are themselves short and plain,
and they mean what they say: A complaint must be concise, and
it must be clear. Rule 8 was not promulgated to provide
helpful advice; it has the force of law, and it must be
followed.” Gurman v. Metro Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, 842 F.Supp.2d 1151, 1152 (D.
Minn. 2011). Rule 8(d) reinforces the point when it provides
“[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise and
direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). By no reasonable
definition can Hunter's complaint be called “short
and plain” or “simple, concise and direct.”
At approximately 75, 000 words, Hunter's complaint is
longer than William Shakespeare's Romeo and
Juliet, King Lear, and Macbeth
combined. Appended to the complaint are 118 pages of
exhibits, some of which include allegations and claims that
go still further beyond the scope of the already bloated
complaint. Seldom are pleadings less compliant with
Rules 8(a)(2) and 8(d)(1) than what Hunter has submitted.
This is reason alone to recommend dismissal of this action.
See Olson v. Little, 978 F.2d 1246 (8th Cir. 1992)
(affirming the district court's sua sponte
dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8).
only is Hunter's complaint too long, it is also
frivolous. Hunter seeks to assert countless claims, most of
them arising under federal criminal statutes, against sundry
defendants, including the Australian government, two former
Presidents of the United States, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, a dozen or
so federal and state-court judges, several law firms, two
property-development companies, and many, many others. The
allegations encompassing these disparate defendants range
from the merely conspiratorial to the outright delusional.
(For example, throughout the complaint, Hunter describes
these defendants in terms such as “Seditious
Terrorist.”) Non-frivolous legal claims cannot be built
atop such fantastic allegations. See Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). The action should
matter merits further comment. Hunter's conduct during
the course of prior litigation has merited the imposition of
filing restrictions within those cases. To this
point, however, Hunter has not been restricted from filing
new lawsuits in this District, despite having filed several
other actions that were, like this action, deemed frivolous
upon initial review. See, e.g., Hunter v. United
States House of Representatives, No. 18-CV-0327 (JNE/HB)
(D. Minn.). Hunter is now being put on notice: Although all
litigants must be afforded access to the courts, that right
does not extend to the filing of baseless or otherwise
frivolous complaints. Should Hunter persist in filing
frivolous lawsuits, it may become necessary to impose further
restrictions upon Hunter's ability to initiate new
proceedings while unrepresented by counsel.
on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. This matter be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules ...