Rahhal v. The East Central Electric Co.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
• Decided: April 29, 2022
• Docket: 6:22-cv-00081
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

BIRDELLA LOVE RAHHAL,

Plaintiffs, Case No.22-CIV-081-RAW v.

THE EAST CENTRAL ELECTRIC CO., et.al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court are the Plaintiff’s Complaint [Docket No. 2] and Plaintiffs= Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis & Supporting Affidavit [Docket No. 4]. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that she is unemployed and unmarried. She states that she “owns” real property described as “the Jew[s] U.S. God-Given Land,” a 27-year old vehicle valued at “?” and has no income but has $1,154.00 in the bank. She reports monthly debt obligations at over $500.00 per month. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. The court construes liberally the pleadings of all pro se litigants. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

Complaint Plaintiff filed her Complaint against the Defendants, stating as follows: “Want all races in their country[s] all these dead folk[s] houses burned, light un Necessary Pole Out = Why did the U.S. Jew Govt let other races in our country to do what they races want to do. Each to own races country[s] = too many roads too much traffic cause hard hate work on the U.S. Jew[s] The East Central Light Co. appeared on my God Given property without a right.

The essence of Plaintiff’s claim seems to involve a burned out light on a pole on her “God-Given” property, which was investigated or repaired by a person or persons (“A White N. African”) who appeared on her property. In the Complaint, Plaintiff cites numerous Bible verses, but sets forth no arguable claim, nor set of facts which would constitute a claim in law or fact, against the Defendants. The relief sought by Plaintiff is stated as follows: “The Pay[s] for All Wrong. Amen and send All u.n. into own u.n. county[s] = The Joshua[s] 17:11 = races.” 28 U.S.C. ' 1915 The court reviews the filings presented by Plaintiff pursuant to Section 1915 of the United States Code, Title 28, which states as follows: (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 thatB (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal— (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.A. ' 1915(e)(2).

A complaint is frivolous Awhere it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.@ Further, the term frivolous Aembraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.@ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A plaintiff is not required to make out a perfect case in their complaint. Rather, AIt suffices for him to state claims that are rationally related to the existing law and the credible factual allegations.@ Lemmons v. Law Firm of Morris and Morris, 39 F.3d 264 (10th Cir. 1994).

Plaintiff’s arguments are “completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous.” Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990). It is difficult to decipher the actual claims Plaintiff is attempting to make and how those claims relate to the persons she has selected as defendants.

Sua Sponte Dismissal Sua sponte dismissals are generally disfavored by the courts.@ Banks v. Vio Software, 275 Fed.Appx. 800 (10th Circ. 2008). A court shall dismiss a case at any time, however, if the court determines that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).

Indeed, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that a district court is required to dismiss an IFP claim that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1216 n.5 (10th Cir. 2006). The court may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to ' 1915 when Aon the face

of the complaint it clearly appears that the action is frivolous or malicious.@ Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1108 (10th Cir. 1991). AThe term >frivolous= refers to >the inarguable legal conclusion= and >the fanciful factual allegation.=@ Id. (citation omitted). Further, a Atrial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.@ McKinney v. State of Oklahoma, 925 F.2d 363, 364 (10th Cir. 1991).

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint “must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction. . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). To be sufficient, the statement must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which

it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Although pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than ones drafted by lawyers, a pro se litigant must “‘follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.’” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994)).

Conclusion In this case, the tirade of indistinguishable claims and circumlocution employed by Plaintiff in expressing her allegations, along with her method of designating defendants leaves the court attempting to sort out what she is asserting and against whom. Further, the relief sought and the basis for the court’s jurisdiction are indeterminable. The

allegations listed in the complaint do not create a claim upon which this lawsuit can proceed.

4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff’s action is found to be frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the matter is therefore dismissed without prejudice.

Dated this 29th day of April, 2022.

______________________________________ HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA