United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
R. LAMMENS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon referral
and after review, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 2) should be denied and the
Complaint (Doc. 1) should be dismissed.
William Lee Grant, II filed a complaint against Defendants
Gregory K. Harris, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the U.S.
Special Operations Command. (Doc. 1). He attempts to assert
claims under the Fourth, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 2). The motion to proceed in forma
pauperis was referred to this Court and the matter is
now ripe for review.
complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was created in the
basement of the Pentagon in 1990 to be “The
Judge” as to whether the Vietnam War constituted war
crimes. He alleges that the Joint Chiefs of Staff placed him
in Springfield, IL in 1992 and have been surveilling him and
orchestrating certain events that have occurred in his life.
For instance, Plaintiff alleges that in 2009 the JCOS and
Gregory K. Harris set him up for driving under the influence
and then undermined his legal defense. He also complains
about being retaliated against for filing a civil rights
action in 2012 and being forced to spend seven years as a
complaint includes several random statements regarding Steve
Jobs, Ashton Kutcher, and Tom Hopper, among others. Plaintiff
seeks $99 trillion in compensatory and punitive damages.
includes in the complaint a list of several other federal
court cases throughout the United States. A review of those
cases reveals that Plaintiff has filed a substantially
similar complaint in several other courts, and that each
court has dismissed his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915.
individual may be allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis if he declares in an affidavit that he
“is unable to pay such fees or give security
therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, before
a plaintiff is permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court is obligated to review the complaint
to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, “fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[, ]”
or . . . “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief.” Id. §
1915(e)(2). If the complaint is deficient, the Court is
required to dismiss the suit sua sponte. Id.
lawsuit is frivolous if the plaintiff's realistic chances
of ultimate success are slight.” Clark v. Ga.
Pardons and Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 639 (11th Cir.
1984) (internal citations omitted). The district court may
dismiss a complaint under § 1915 on grounds of
frivolousness if an affirmative defense would defeat the
action. Id. at 640. For example, the absolute
immunity of the defendant would justify the dismissal of a
claim as frivolous. Id. at 640, n. 2. “When
the defense is apparent from the face of a complaint or the
court's records, courts need not wait and see if the
defense will be asserted in a defensive pleading.”
Id. Indeed, “[i]ndigence does not create a
constitutional right to the expenditure of public funds and
the valuable time of the courts in order to prosecute an
action which is totally without merit.” Phillips v.
Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984)(citing
Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 828 (10th Cir.
evaluating a complaint under § 1915, a document filed
pro se is to be liberally construed. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nonetheless, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. While Rule
8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, does not require
detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an
unadorned, the defendant unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
677-8 (2009). A pleading is insufficient if it offers mere
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Eleventh Circuit utilizes a two-pronged approach in its
application of the holdings in Iqbal and
Twombly. First, “eliminate any allegations in
the complaint that are merely legal conclusions, ” and
then, “where there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, ‘assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
relief.'” Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna
Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). In applying these
principles, the Court can infer “‘obvious
alternative explanation[s],' which suggest lawful conduct
rather than the unlawful conduct the plaintiff would ask the
court to infer.” Id. (quoting Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 682). In short, the law requires something more
“than an unadorned the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and
therefore, have an obligation to inquire into their subject
matter jurisdiction. See Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage
Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2001). Parties
seeking to invoke the limited jurisdiction of the federal
court over a cause of action must show that the underlying
claim is based upon either diversity jurisdiction
(controversies exceeding $75, 000 between citizens of
different states) or the existence of a federal question
(i.e., “a civil action arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States”) in which a
private right of action has been created or is implied by
Congressional intent. See 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1332.