Valero v. Obama

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided August 8, 2011·No. Civil Action No. 2011-1440·Published

Opinion

UNITED srArEs DISTRICT couRr FoR THE Dlsrkicr oF coLUMBiA AUG 9 3 2011

Cl€rk. u.s. oasrrict and

Raymond Valero, ) Bankruptcy courts

Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. ) President Barack Obama et al. ) Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint upon a determination that the complaint, among other grounds, is frivolous).

Plaintiff, a Texas inmate confined in Lovelady, Texas, sues President Barack Obama, the United States, the State of Texas, a Texas judge, and an attomey. See Compl. at 4. He claims that "[t]he president and former presidents . . . [have] been cruelly hurting the poor American citizen . . . with these cruelly and painfully slavery (federal and state prison & jail)." Compl. at 5. Plaintiff "demand[s]" that this Court enter a judgment of acquittal and seeks $7 billion in damages. Ia’.

The complaint not only presents the type of fantastic or delusional scenarios found to justify immediate dismissal as frivolous, Neitzke v. Wz'llz`ams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); Besl v.

Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994), but it is frivolous also because it lacks "an arguable

basis in law and fact." Brandon v. District ofColumbz`a Bd ofParole, 734 F.Zd 56, 59 (D.C. Cir.

1984). A separate Grder of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Mws.t,

Date: August Y , 2011 United States District Judge

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

Valero v. Obama, (D.D.C. 2011).

Valero v. Obama (Valero v. Obama) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Tony Best v. Sharon Pratt Kelly, Mayor
39 F.3d 328 (D.C. Circuit, 1994)