Case 1:19-cv-00350-SPB Document 2 Filed 12/06/19 Page 1 of 5
`Case 1:19-cv-OO350-SPB Document 2 Filed 12/06/19 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`C.A.No. 1:19-CV-350
`
`District Judge Baxter
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`WILLIAM LEE GRANT, III,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et a1,
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`Procedural History
`
`On November 25 , 2019, Plaintiff William Lee Grant, Ill, acting pro se, filed a motion
`
`seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, along with a civil rights complaint. ECF No. 1. As
`
`part of the screening process on a motion for in forma pauperis status, the Court must review the
`
`complaint.
`
`Standards of Review
`
`This Court has discretion to dismiss frivolous or malicious in forma pauperis complaints
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989). The US.
`
`Supreme Court has instructed that § 1915 provides the Court with the authority “... to dismiss a
`
`claim based on an indisputably meritless theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of
`
`the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearl
`
`baseless.” Neitzke V. Williams, 490 US. 319, 327 (1989). Factual allegations that are “fanciful,”
`
`“fantastic,” and “delusional” are considered “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 US.
`
`25, 31 (1992).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00350-SPB Document 2 Filed 12/06/19 Page 2 of 5
`Case 1:19-cv-00350-SPB Document 2 Filed 12/06/19 Page 2 of 5
`
`Evaluating motions to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is a two-step
`
`process. Roman v. Jefles, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990). “First, the district court evaluates
`
`a litigant's financial status and determines whether (s)he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis
`
`under § 1915(a). Second the court assesses the complaint under [§ 1915(e)(2)] to determine
`
`whether it is frivolous.” Id. (internal citation omitted). So only after the district court grants the
`
`request to proceed in forma pauperis may it dismiss the complaint as legally frivolous. See
`
`Jackson v. Brown, 460 Fed. Apr 77, 79 n2 (3d Cir. 2012) (“As a procedural matter, therefore,
`
`the District Court should have addressed Jackson’s [in forma pauperis] motion before dismissing
`
`the complaint as frivolous, rather than deny the [in forma pauperis] motion as moot after
`
`dismissal”).
`
`The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to §
`
`1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on a motion to dismiss
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Toursclzer v. McCullough, 184 F.3d
`
`236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). However, before dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim upon
`
`which relief may be granted, a court must grant the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, unless
`
`amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp, 293 F.3d 103,
`
`114 (3d Cir. 2002).
`
`In reviewing a pro se plaintiffs complaint, the court must accept all factual allegations in
`
`the complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to the pro se plaintiff. See
`
`Erickson v. Pardus, 551 US. 89, 93 (2007); Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229
`
`(3d Cir. 2008). A complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim
`
`to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 556 (2007). The
`
`court need not accept inferences drawn by the plaintiff if they are unsupported by the facts in the
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00350-SPB Document 2 Filed 12/06/19 Page 3 of 5
`Case 1:19-cv-00350-SPB Document 2 Filed 12/06/19 Page 3 of 5
`
`complaint. See California Pub. Employee Rel. Sys. v. The Chubb Corp, 394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d
`
`Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted).
`
`Finally, a court must employ less stringent standards when considering pro se pleadings
`
`than when judging the work product of an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521
`
`(1972). When presented with a pro se complaint, the court should construe the complaint
`
`liberally and draw fair inferences from what is not alleged as well as from what is alleged.
`
`Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003). See also Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65
`
`(3d Cir. 1996) (“Since this is a § 1983 action, the [pro se] plaintiffs are entitled to relief if their
`
`complaint sufficiently alleges deprivation of any right secured by the Constitution”). Despite
`
`this liberality, pro se litigants are not relieved of their obligation to allege sufficient facts to
`
`support a cognizable legal claim.
`
`Assessment of Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
`
`In his motion, Plaintiff states that he cannot pay the filing fee associated with this case.
`
`Based on this averment, I find that Plaintiff is without sufficient funds to pay the costs and fees
`
`of the proceedings, and therefore his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be
`
`granted.
`
`Assessment of Plaintiff’s Complaint
`
`In his Complaint brought pursuant to § 1983, Mr. Grant names the Central Intelligence
`
`Agency and the Special Collection Service. Mr. Grant, who lives in Illinois, alleges a vast
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00350-SPB Document 2 Filed 12/06/19 Page 4 of 5
`Case 1:19-cv-00350-SPB Document 2 Filed 12/06/19 Page 4 of 5
`
`conspiracy violating his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
`
`Amendments to the US. Constitution.1
`
`Mr. Grant’s complaint begins with the allegation that President Ronald Reagan directed
`
`the Secretary of Defense to create Mr. Grant to predict future nuclear attacks and that after he
`
`was created in 1990 at the Air Force Systems Command, Mr. Grant was transferred to the
`
`basement of the Pentagon. ECF No. 1, 1] 1] 7—8. Mr. Grant explains that two years later the
`
`Secretary of Defense “dropped [him] off’ in Springfield, Illinois with two individuals “to be
`
`beaten; endure psychological warfare; and to be the DOD’s witness to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”
`
`Id. at1] 10.
`
`Mr. Grant’s allegations become more fanciful as the complaint goes on. He was forced to
`
`stab a doctor in 2002 [id. at 1] 15], he was forced to “act gay” for seven years [id at 1] 17], the
`
`state of Illinois filed multiple DUI charges against him in 2009 [id. at 1] 1] 19-25], he was sexually
`
`assaulted by two people in 2003 [id at 1] 36] and by two other individuals in 2014 [id at 37]. Mr.
`
`Grant goes on to make allegations about Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Hillary
`
`Rodham Clinton, Richard Daley, Philip Mountbatten, Louis Farrakhan, Courtney Love, OJ.
`
`Simpson, Henry Kissinger, Chris Christie, and many others. Mr. Grant blames the Central
`
`Intelligence Agency for the assassination of President Kennedy and the Arab Spring. Id. at 1] 1]
`
`68-69. Mr. Grant seeks ninety-nine trillion dollars in damages. Id. at 1] 73.
`
`Mr. Grant’s allegations satisfy the very definitions of the terms “fanciful,” “fantastic,”
`
`and “delusional.” See Grant v. Central Intelligence Agency, 2019 WL 5847138, at *2 (D.Utah,
`
`
`
`1 This case is similar to several other cases Plaintiff has filed in federal district courts across the
`country in the last two years. Some courts have held that Mr. Grant is “a serial filer of frivolous
`litigation in various federal courts across the country.” See Grant v. Central Intelligence Agency,
`2019 WL 6218676 (ED. Mi. Nov. 21, 2019) citing Grant v. US. Dep ’t ofTransportation, 2019
`WL 1009408 (ED. Tex. Jan. 28,2019).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00350-SPB Document 2 Filed 12/06/19 Page 5 of 5
`Case 1:19-cv-00350-SPB Document 2 Filed 12/06/19 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`Oct. 17, 2019) (“the complaint centers on baseless assertions of overnment conspiracy and is a
`
`collection of factual allegations that are fanciful, fantastic and delusional”); Grant v, Central
`
`Intelligence Agency, 2019 WL 5391470, at *1 (SD. 111. 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, at *2 (ED. 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 ...”).
`
`The complaint will be dismissed as frivolous and Plaintiff will not be permitted to amend
`
`his complaint as any amendment would be futile. An appropriate Order follows.
`
`