United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division
C. BURKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lee Grant, II, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Missile Defense
Agency, and the State of Illinois. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also
filed an Application for Leave to Proceed Without Prepaying
Fees and Costs. (Doc. 2). The court GRANTS
Plaintiff's Application. However, for the reasons set out
herein, the court DISMISSES this action
WITH PREJUDICE for failing to state a claim
on which relief can be granted.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides, in relevant part:
(e)(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the
case at any time if the court determines that-
* * * * * (B) the action or appeal--
(i) is frivolous or malicious; [or]
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; .
. . .
conducting its review of Plaintiff's complaint, the court
is mindful that complaints by pro se litigants are
held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys and subject to liberal construction. Boxer X v.
Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006).
However, the court “may not serve as de facto counsel
for a party . . . or rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading
in order to sustain an action.” Ausar-El ex rel.
Small, Jr. v. BAC (Bank of America) Home Loans Servicing
LP, 448 Fed.Appx. 1, 2 (11th Cir. 2011)
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
first alleges, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and
1985, that the Illinois Governor's Office retaliated
against him for filing a civil rights complaint in 2012. The
last fact Plaintiff mentions in connection with those claims
occurred in 2016. Therefore, the statute of limitations bars
his claims. See Lufkin v. McCallum, 956 F.2d 1104,
1106 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that the statute of
limitations for 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claims
in Alabama is two years). Moreover, a federal court in
Alabama is not the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's
claims regarding his employment in the State of Illinois.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
remainder of his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the
Department of Defense created him to predict future nuclear
attacks, that former Vice President Dick Cheney personally
profited from United States military operations, and that
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, ordered the assassination
of Princess Diana. Those claims are frivolous because they
describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims
with which federal district judges are all too
familiar.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
court further notes that Plaintiff “has been recognized
as a frequent filer of frivolous litigation in federal courts
throughout the country and he has made the same claims in
many of his filings.” Grant v. Harris, No. CV
19-763-RGA, 2019 WL 2491680, at *2 (D. Del. June 14, 2019)
(citing Grant v. United States Dept. of the
Treasury, 2018 WL 3748415, at *1 (E.D. Tex. June 25,
2018). Plaintiff's present Complaint appears to be the
same document he has filed in other courts, except that he
crossed out the name of the court from the previous case
heading, and substituted this court's name in handwritten
text. That action is consistent with Plaintiff's practice
in past cases. As the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Rhode Island described:
Plaintiff is a prolific pro se litigant who has
filed identical copies of this lawsuit in Federal Courts
throughout the country. His Complaint is typewritten but
contains handwritten notations and substitutions throughout.
For example, Plaintiff handwrote “District of Rhode
Island” on his Complaint in the margin and crossed out
the name of another federal court where he previously filed
this Complaint. Moreover, in the body of his Complaint, he
notes that the Federal Courts in the Northern and Central
Districts of Illinois; Southern District of Illinois; Central
District of California; District of Maryland; Northern
District of Georgia; Eastern District of New York; Western
District of Virginia; Eastern, Northern and Western Districts
of Texas and the Federal Circuit have found this lawsuit to
be frivolous and have dismissed it. . . . A review of his
filings in the PACER document filing system confirms that he
has filed this lawsuit throughout the country.
Grant v. Harris, No. 19-00353-WES, 2019 WL 3937022,
at *1 (D.R.I. Aug. 20, 2019). Therefore, even if Plaintiff s
claims were not frivolous, res judicata would bar him from