Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fuller v. Olathe Police Department

United States District Court, D. Kansas

October 20, 2017

HAROLD GLEN FULLER, Plaintiff,
v.
OLATHE POLICE DEPARTMENT, INS CORPORATION, SCOTT HARVEY REAL ESTATE COMPANY, DORSCH LAW FIRM AND REAL/ESTATE COMPANY, THE UNITED STATES, INC. and all its municipal franchises, et al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          TERESA J. JAMES U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Harold Glen Fuller, proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action listing the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Federation Harare Governor Office, and James Clinton Belcher as plaintiffs. He purports to file his complaint in the “International Tribunal of Climate Justice as compliance mechanism of the Imperial Crown of Ethiopia, Government of the Holy Roman Empire the Vatican Chancery Court.” He names as defendants the Olathe Police Department, INS Corporation, Scott Harvey Real Estate Company, Dorsch Law Firm and Real/Estate Company, and “The United States, Inc. and all its municipal franchises dba CHINA (INC.) . . ., ” among others. Mr. Fuller signs all the filings as “Senior Director General/Housing Secretary Federal Republic of Ethiopia, Abroad.”

         In conjunction with the filing of his civil complaint, Plaintiff filed an “Affidavit of Financial Status, ” which the Court construed as his request for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Court granted that motion, but withheld service of the summons and complaint pending review of whether Plaintiff's complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted, or is frivolous or malicious.

         The in forma pauperis statute requires that the court dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit.[1]The purpose of § 1915(e) is to “discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit and because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.”[2]

         In determining whether dismissal is appropriate under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a plaintiff's complaint is analyzed by the court under the same sufficiency standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.[3] Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only “where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.”[4] In determining whether dismissal is proper, the court “must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe those allegations, and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”[5]

         In making this analysis, the court must liberally construe the pleadings and hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys.[6] Liberally construing a pro se plaintiff's complaint means that “if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.”[7] This does not mean, however, that the court must become an advocate for the pro se plaintiff.[8] Sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e)(2) is also proper when the complaint clearly appears frivolous or malicious on its face.[9]

         In the complaint and all other papers filed by Mr. Fuller, he names the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Federation Harare Governor Office, and James Clinton Belcher as plaintiffs.[10] Mr. Fuller thus appears to be filing the complaint on behalf of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Federation Harare Governor Office, and James Clinton Belcher. Because Mr. Fuller is not an attorney admitted to practice before this Court, he may not appear or file a complaint on behalf of any other person or entity in this Court. The complaint is thus operative only to those claims asserted by Mr. Fuller, and the Court accordingly limits its review to allegations involving claims that could be asserted by Mr. Fuller.

         Mr. Fuller has filed a purported complaint comprised of 68 pages of rambling, incoherent, random, and incomprehensible statements on a variety of topics ranging from an economic relations agreement treaty of amity between the United States and Ethiopia, the jurisdiction of the Vatican City State, unincorporated government organizations and bankruptcies, as well as a purported criminal complaint charging municipal corporations with fraud. He opines on “Basic Concepts” such as the “jurisdiction of the air is global in nature.”[11]With respect to defendant The UNITED STATES, INC., he alleges:

The UNITED STATES INC. and all its municipal franchisees dba CHINA (INC.), JAPAN (INC.), INDIA (INC.), STATE OF OREGON (INC.), JOHN MICHAEL SMITH (INC.), CITY OF OMAHA (INC.), UNITED KINGDOM (INC.), FLORIDA (INC.), CANADA (INC.), AUTRALIA (INC.) . . . ad infinitum, is in Chapter 7 Liquidation since 2015.[12]

         Based upon its review of the complaint, the Court finds the only page with any allegations even vaguely referring to Defendants Olathe Police Department, INS Corporation, Scott Harvey Real Estate and/or Dorsch Law Firm are contained on page 16, which states:

         INS CORPORATION gave false discovery responses NEVER RENEW[ED] TH[EIR] CONTRACT WITH GSA, after February 2015 expir[ation] and still flipping Federal Properties; (2) Dorsch law firm failed to Record with Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, (3) Dorsch Law Firm engaged in deposition misconduct.

         Although Dorsch Law Firm, Scott Harvey Real Estate, ISN CORPORATION, Olathe, Police conspired to steal United States of America Properties continu[ally] has indicated that he prevented some documents from being destroyed, of officer refuses to complete a proper report form, did not implement a company-wide litigation hold on relevant documents. There is no indication that ISN CORPORATION INC, never renew[ed] th[eir] contract with GSA:. CAPTAIN BRAGG told Mr. Fuller during his deposition that if you enter the properties the you shall go to jail, they ha[ve] knowledge th[is] private corporation is embezzling Federal Properties . . . .[13]

         This quoted language is nonsensical and incomprehensible. Construing the allegations in Plaintiffs complaint liberally and in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff Fuller has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, his complaint is frivolous, and it would further be futile to give Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint.

         Accordingly, the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff Fuller's complaint and this case be DISMISSED as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.