Jamimani v. Every US President after President Richard M. Nixon

D. Massachusetts

Jamimani v. Every US President after President Richard M. Nixon

DecidedJuly 2, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-11672

StatusUnknown

This text of Jamimani v. Every US President after President Richard M. Nixon (Jamimani v. Every US President after President Richard M. Nixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jamimani v. Every US President after President Richard M. Nixon, (D. Mass. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-cv-11672-RGS CHOSEN ONE JA’MIMA’NI

v. EVERY U.S. PRESIDENT AFTER: PRESIDENT RICHARD MILHOUSE NIXON, THE NATION OF ISLAM, ALL NAZI/ANTI-CHRIST ORGANIZATION, ROBERT CRANE ORDER OF DISMISSAL July 2, 2024 STEARNS, D.J. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is ALLOWED. Because the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the complaint is subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). Section 1915 authorizes the federal courts to dismiss an action in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee if, among other things, the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune party. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In conducting this review, the court construes the complaint “with some liberality” because he is proceeding pro se. Instituto de Educacion Universal Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Educ., 209 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir.

2000) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per curiam)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).

While the court does not doubt the sincerity of plaintiff’s belief in his claims, the complaint, even read generously, does not meet the minimal screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). Indeed, among other deficiencies, there are no plausibly pleaded allegations against any of the

defendants. Accordingly, because it is “crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would be futile,” Chute v. Walker, 281 F.3d 314, 319 (1st Cir. 2002), this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk is directed to enter a separate order of dismissal and CLOSE this action.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Richard G. Stearns_________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-cv-11672-RGS CHOSEN ONE JA’MIMA’NI

v. EVERY U.S. PRESIDENT AFTER: PRESIDENT RICHARD MILHOUSE NIXON, THE NATION OF ISLAM, ALL NAZI/ANTI-CHRIST ORGANIZATION, ROBERT CRANE ORDER OF DISMISSAL July 2, 2024 STEARNS, D.J. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is ALLOWED. Because the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the complaint is subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). Section 1915 authorizes the federal courts to dismiss an action in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee if, among other things, the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune party. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In conducting this review, the court construes the complaint “with some liberality” because he is proceeding pro se. Instituto de Educacion Universal Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Educ., 209 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir.

2000) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per curiam)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).

While the court does not doubt the sincerity of plaintiff’s belief in his claims, the complaint, even read generously, does not meet the minimal screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). Indeed, among other deficiencies, there are no plausibly pleaded allegations against any of the

defendants. Accordingly, because it is “crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would be futile,” Chute v. Walker, 281 F.3d 314, 319 (1st Cir. 2002), this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk is directed to enter a separate order of dismissal and CLOSE this action.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Richard G. Stearns_________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jamimani v. Every US President after President Richard M. Nixon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamimani-v-every-us-president-after-president-richard-m-nixon-mad-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack