![handle is hein.journals/novalr17 and id is 827 raw text is: GOD JUANITA GRIER, Plaintiff,
V.
Pres. Ronald REAGAN, Mrs. Nancy Reagan, U.S. States
Government and Congress, Citizen of U. States &
Foreign Countries, Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 86-0724.
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
April 1, 1986.
FULLAM, District Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights
complaint accompanied by a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Since
it appears plaintiff is unable to prepay the cost for commencement of this
suit, leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Plaintiff names as defendants President and Mrs. Reagan, the United
States Government, Congress, and the citizens of the United States and
foreign countries. Her complaint is lengthy, rambling, and at times
incomprehensible. It seems that plaintiff's basic claims are that she is god
of the Universe and that the citizens of the Universe, former Presidents
Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and President Reagan have perpetrated crimes
against her through the use of an electronic eavesdropping device. The
majority of her complaint is composed of a request for relief in which she
asks that the court award her items ranging from a size sixteen mink coat
and diamond jewelry to a three bedroom home in the suburbs and a catered
party at the Spectrum in Philadelphia.
In evaluating complaints filed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, the in
forma pauperis statute, the court may make a determination under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(d) whether the complaint states a claim which has a
reasonable probability of succeeding on the merits. Daves v. Scranton, 66
F.R.D. 5, 7 (E.D. Pa. 1975). See also United States ex rel. Walker v.
Fayette County, 599 F.2d 573, 575 (3d Cir. 1979) (per curium). After
reviewing the instant complaint, it is clear that the complaint is frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d) and dismissal is appropriate. Even
construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the claims set
forth by plaintiff demonstrate a patent lack of merit . . . [and] want of
realistic chances of ultimate success, warranting dismissal. Jones v. Ault,
67 F.R.D. 124, 127 (S.D. Ga. 1974), aff'd 516 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1975)
1. This opinion is reprinted exactly as written by Judge Fullam.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/novalr17&div=47
&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most