Case 4:19-cv-13422-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 11/21/19 PageID.41 Page 1 of 6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Case No.19-cv-13422
`Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
`
`WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`____________________________________________________________________/
`
`ORDER (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
`PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 2); (2) SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND
`(3) CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL CANNOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD
`FAITH
`
`
`
`Plaintiff William Lee Grant, II is “is a serial filer of frivolous litigation in various
`
`federal courts across the country.” Grant v. U.S. Dep.’t of Transportation, 2019 WL
`
`1009408, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2019), report and recommendation adopted at 2019
`
`WL 1003641 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2019). “The vast majority of [these] cases [of which
`
`the Court is aware] have been dismissed as frivolous.” Id. See also Grant v. Harris,
`
`2019 WL 1510008, at *1 (W.D. Va. Apr. 5, 2019) (“Grant has been recognized as a
`
`frequent filer of frivolous litigation in federal courts throughout the country”); Grant v.
`
`United States Dep.’t of Defense, 770 F. App’x 121, 122 (4th Cir. 2019) (dismissing
`
`appeals as frivolous, sanctioning Grant “for filing frivolous appeals,” and “enjoin[ing]
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-13422-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 11/21/19 PageID.42 Page 2 of 6
`
`him from filing any further actions in this court unless he pays the sanctions and a
`
`district court finds that the action is not frivolous”).1 This is another such case.
`
`
`
`In this action, Grant alleges, among other things, that:
`
` President Ronald Reagan “directed” the Secretary of Defense to “create” Grant
`
`in order “to predict future nuclear attacks”;
`
` The Department of Defense “kept Mr. Grant in Illinois for nearly thirty (30)
`
`years under threat of military threat”;
`
` “Hillary Rodham Clinton killed Vince Foster”;
`
` “Courtney Love killed Kurt Cobain”;
`
` “Phillip Mountbatten ordered the assassination of Diana, Princess of Wales”;
`
`and
`
` “The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) killed “John F. Kennedy.”
`
`(Compl., ECF No. 1.) For these alleged wrongful actions, Grant seeks “$99 trillion in
`
`damages.” (Id. at ¶82, PageID.10.) Grant has also filed an application to proceed in
`
`forma pauperis and without the prepayment of fees or costs in this action. (See App.,
`
`ECF No. 2.)
`
`Applications to proceed without the prepayment of fees or costs are governed
`
`by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). That statute provides that a federal court “may authorize the
`
`commencement ... of any suit, action, or proceeding... by a person who submits an
`
`                                                            
`1 See also Grant v. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2019 WL 1752638, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Apr.
`15, 2019) (“The district court properly dismissed [Grant’s] complaint as frivolous”).
`2
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-13422-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 11/21/19 PageID.43 Page 3 of 6
`
`affidavit that includes a statement of all assets ... that the person is unable to pay such
`
`fees....” Id. The Court has reviewed Grant’s application and is satisfied that the
`
`prepayment of the filing fee would cause him an undue financial harm. The Court
`
`therefore GRANTS Grant’s application and permits him to file the Complaint without
`
`prepaying the filing fee.
`
`When a plaintiff is allowed to proceed without the prepayment of fees or costs,
`
`the Court is required to screen the complaint and dismiss it if it (i) asserts frivolous or
`
`malicious claims, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and/or (iii)
`
`seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in
`
`law or in fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In addition, while the
`
`Court must liberally construe documents filed by a pro se plaintiff, see Haines v.
`
`Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a complaint filed by such a plaintiff must nonetheless
`
`plead sufficient specific factual allegations, and not just legal conclusions, in support of
`
`each claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–679 (2009); see also Hill v.
`
`Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–471 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the dismissal standard
`
`of Iqbal applies to a Court's review of a complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to
`
`state a claim). The Court will therefore dismiss a complaint that does not state a
`
`“plausible claim for relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-13422-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 11/21/19 PageID.44 Page 4 of 6
`
`The Court has carefully reviewed Grant’s Complaint and concludes that it is both
`
`frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As one judge
`
`recently explained when reviewing a nearly identical Complaint that Grant had filed:
`
`Mr. Grant’s pleading contains a host of fanciful accusations.
`These range from individuals directing his dentist to “drill
`the enamel off” of his teeth, forcing Mr. Grant “to stab Dr.
`Grant” his father and to “act gay for more than seven years”,
`to the State of Illinois denying his prior civil rights complaint
`and retaliating against him. Other accusations include Dick
`Cheney lobbying for the invasion of Iraq and profiting off
`the war in Iraq. And, other claims of Hillary Clinton killing
`Vince Foster, O.J. Simpson being guilty of killing Nicole
`Brown
`Simpson
`and
`Ronald Goldman
`and
`the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) killing John F.
`Kennedy. In short, Mr. Grant’s complaint is frivolous.
`There is no interpretation of these assertions, along with
`the cadre of others he makes, that even under the most
`liberal construction possibly afforded a pro se plaintiff
`by which the court can decipher a cognizable claim. The
`complaint centers on baseless assertions of government
`conspiracy and is a collection of factual allegations that are
`fanciful, fantastic and delusional.
`
`Grant v. Central Intelligence Agency, 2019 WL 5847138, at *2 (D. Utah, Oct. 17, 2019)
`
`(emphasis added), report and recommendation adopted at 2019 WL 5802693 (D. Utah
`
`Nov. 7, 2019); Grant v. Central Intelligence Agency, 2019 WL 5391470, at *1 (S.D.
`
`Ill. Oct. 22, 2019) (“Here, the fundamental problem is that Grant’s allegations are
`
`frivolous. Grant detailed his attempts to file a similar rendition of this complaint on
`
`numerous occasions before courts across the country, including previously in this Court
`
`[]. Nothing about this most recent filing before the Court transforms his claims from
`
`frivolous to non-frivolous.”); Grant v. Central Intelligence Agency, 2019 WL 6050830,
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-13422-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 11/21/19 PageID.45 Page 5 of 6
`
`at *2 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2019) (“Plaintiff’s claims are based upon allegations of
`
`espionage and conspiracy that are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional, or that rise to the
`
`level of the irrational or wholly incredible. The Court concludes that the allegations are
`
`clearly baseless …. Additionally, this case appears to be part of a pattern of abusive
`
`litigation that plaintiff has recently engaged in all over the country. The Court will
`
`therefore dismiss the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).”).
`
`
`
`For all of these same reasons, the Court concludes that Grant has failed to state
`
`a cognizable claim here. His current Complaint, like the others he has filed, is nothing
`
`more than “part of a pattern of abusive litigation that [Grant] has engaged in all over
`
`the country.” Id. Therefore, Grant’s Complaint must be dismissed.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, for all of the reasons stated above:
`
` Grant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED;
`
` Grant’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED; and
`
` An appeal of this order cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 21, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Matthew F. Leitman
`MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-13422-MFL-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 11/21/19 PageID.46 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
`
`parties and/or counsel of record on November 21, 2019, by electronic means and/or
`ordinary mail.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Holly A. Monda
`Case Manager
`(810) 341-9764
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`