Case 2:19-cv-05607-JCJ Document 4 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
`AGENCY, et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`JOYNER, J.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-CV-5607
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` JANUARY 15, 2020
`
`
`
`Plaintiff William Lee Grant, II, who resides in Illinois, filed this pro se civil action
`
`against the Central Intelligence Agency and Special Collection Service. Grant seeks leave to
`
`proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will grant him leave to proceed
`
`in forma pauperis and dismiss his Complaint as frivolous.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`In his Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Grant alleges a vast
`
`governmental conspiracy against the Central Intelligence Agency and Special Collection Service,
`
`asserting that his constitutional rights have been violated under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and
`
`Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.1
`
`
`1 The action filed in this Court is similar to actions that Grant has filed in various federal district
`courts across the nation during the last few years. In fact, Grant is regarded as “a serial filer of
`frivolous litigation in various federal courts across the country” and the “vast majority of [these]
`cases [of which the Court is aware] have been dismissed as frivolous.” Grant v. Central
`Intelligence Agency, Civ. A. No. 19-13422, 2019 WL 6218676, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2019)
`(citing 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); see
`also 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] him from
`filing any further actions in this court unless he pays the sanctions and a district court finds that
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-05607-JCJ Document 4 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 5
`
`In the initial pages of his Complaint, Grant avers that “Commander-In-Chief (Ronald
`
`Reagan) directed the Secretary of Defense to create Mr. Grant to predict future nuclear attacks”
`
`and following his creation “in 1990 at Air Force Systems Command,” he was transferred “to the
`
`basement of the Pentagon.” (ECF No. 2 at 5.) 2 Grant asserts that two years later the Secretary
`
`of Defense dropped him and two other individuals off in Springfield, Illinois “to be beaten;
`
`endure psychological warfare; and to be the DOD’s witness to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.” (Id.)
`
`Grant’s allegations become more unbelievable as his Complaint continues including,
`
`among other things, the following assertions:
`
`• “Mr. Grant was forced to stab Dr. Grant in 2002, or the Office of the Secretary of
`
`Defense would have sent someone to kill Dr. Grant”;
`
`• “Mr. Grant was forced to ‘act gay’ from December 9, 2008 until 2016”;
`
`• “The DOD stole nearly thirty (30) years of Mr. Grant’s life to bring this action”;
`
`• “Hillary Rodham Clinton killed Vince Foster”;
`
`• “Bill Clinton is a serial rapist”;
`
`• “Philip Mountbatten ‘ordered’ the assassination of Diana, Princess of Wales”;
`
`• “Courtney Love killed Kurt Cobain”; and
`
`• “The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) killed John F. Kennedy.”
`
`(Id. at 3, 6-11.) For these alleged wrongful actions and others, Grant seeks “$99 trillion in
`
`damages.” (Id. at 12.)
`
`
`
`
`the action is not frivolous”); 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”).
`
` The Court adopts the pagination assigned to the Complaint by the CM/ECF system.
`
`2
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-05607-JCJ Document 4 Filed 01/16/20 Page 3 of 5
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Because it appears that he is incapable of paying the fees necessary to commence this
`
`action, Grant will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, Grant’s
`
`Complaint is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), which requires the Court to dismiss
`
`the Complaint if it frivolous or fails to state a claim. A complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an
`
`arguable basis either in law or in fact,” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and is
`
`legally baseless if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Deutsch v. United
`
`States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995). To survive dismissal, the complaint must contain
`
`“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). “[M]ere conclusory
`
`statements[] do not suffice.” Id. Factual allegations that are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and
`
`“delusional” are considered “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992).
`
`As Grant is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att’y Gen.,
`
`655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
`
`Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to contain “a
`
`short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that pleadings provide enough information to put a defendant
`
`on sufficient notice to prepare their defense and also ensure that the Court is sufficiently
`
`informed to determine the issue.” Fabian v. St. Mary’s Med. Ctr., No. Civ. A. 16-4741, 2017
`
`WL 3494219, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2017) (quotations omitted). A district court may sua
`
`sponte dismiss a complaint that does not comply with Rule 8 if “the complaint is so confused,
`
`ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.”
`
`Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-05607-JCJ Document 4 Filed 01/16/20 Page 4 of 5
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`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. His allegations of a vast
`
`governmental conspiracy are fanciful and delusional. Several other courts have reviewed similar
`
`pleadings and have concluded that Grant’s allegations are frivolous. In fact, as recently noted by
`
`the United States District Court of Utah,
`
`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, 2019 WL 6218676, at *1 (citing 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, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Nov.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-05607-JCJ Document 4 Filed 01/16/20 Page 5 of 5
`
`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).”). Grant’s Complaint will be dismissed as frivolous.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis
`
`and dismiss his Complaint. As it appears amendment would be futile, especially in light of
`
`Grant’s litigation history across the nation, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice. Grant
`
`should note that the repeated filing of duplicative lawsuits raising claims that the Court has
`
`already addressed and dismissed may result in restrictions on filing privileges in the future. See
`
`Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329, 333 (3d Cir. 1990) (“When a district court is confronted
`
`with a pattern of conduct from which it can only conclude that a litigant is intentionally abusing
`
`the judicial process and will continue to do so unless restrained, we believe it is entitled to resort
`
`to its power of injunction and contempt to protect its process.”). An appropriate Order follows,
`
`which shall be docketed separately.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`
`s/ J. Curtis Joyner
`
`
`
`J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`