`E-FILED
`
` Wednesday, 30 January, 2008 05:21:30 PM
` Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`Case No. 08-4005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DR. REV. KAMEL K. ROY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GEORGE W. BUSH, DICK CHENEY,
`and CITY OF NEW YORK,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff Dr. Rev. Kamel K. Roy’s Motion for Leave to Proceed
`
`In Forma Pauperis [#1]. For the reasons set forth below, this Motion is GRANTED.
`
`However, this matter is DISMISSED as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which
`
`relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 allows any person to commence a civil action without the
`
`prepayment of fees if the person is unable to pay those fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
`
`Roy submitted an Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and
`
`Affidavit. It appears from the partially illegible notations on the application that Roy has
`
`monthly income of $625.00 from the Social Security Administration and, possibly,
`
`assets totaling $95.00. On these facts, Roy establishes that his is unable to pay court
`
`fees.
`
`
`
`4:08-cv-04005-MMM-JAG # 2 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`However, the Court’s inquiry does not end with a finding of indigence. The Court
`
`must dismiss the case if it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii)
`
`fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief
`
`against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A lawsuit
`
`is not frivolous unless the plaintiff “can make no rational argument in law or fact to
`
`support [his] claims for relief.” Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247 (7th Cir. 1983).
`
`Additionally, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that any
`
`complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
`
`pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Each averment of a pleading shall be
`
`simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1).
`
`Even with the most liberal reading of the complaint, the fifty-six-page pleading
`
`includes court documents with illegible and illogical handwritten notations and other
`
`documents that appear entirely unrelated to any cognizable legal claim. The filing also
`
`includes portions of orders from other district courts dismissing complaints as frivolous.
`
`This pleading fails to comply with the minimal pleading requirements set forth in Rule
`
`8(a).
`
`Another court in this district recently dismissed a similarly incoherent complaint
`
`as frivolous and without merit. Roy v. All State Boards of Election, Case No. 07-cv-
`
`4047 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2007). Additionally, other district courts have dismissed similar
`
`complaints as frivolous and malicious. See Roy v. United States, Case No. 06-cv-0685,
`
`2007 WL 1109296 (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2007); Roy v. State of New York, 07-cv-0340, 2007
`
`WL 602303 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2007).
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`4:08-cv-04005-MMM-JAG # 2 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`As the aforementioned courts have found, this Court finds that Roy’s Complaint
`
`fails to state a legal claim, is frivolous, and fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, because the Court can discern no arguably
`
`cognizable claims from Roy’s pleadings, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the
`
`Complaint.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
`
`Pauperis [#1] is GRANTED for the limited purpose of this Order. This matter is
`
`DISMISSED as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and for failure to conform to Rule 8(a) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure. This matter is terminated.
`
`
`
`ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2008.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael M. Mihm
`Michael M. Mihm
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
