GWINNELL-KENNEDY v. U.S.

Civil Action No. 09 0737.

Cheryl Gwinnell-Kennedy, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Government Judiciary et at., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Columbia.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN BATES, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on consideration of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff, Cheryl Gwinnell-Kennedy, brings this civil RICO suit against the "U.S. Government Judiciary," President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, all members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein as individuals, New York's Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, judges and various officials connected with the Ulster County (New York) court and district attorney's office, the Nassau County (New York) Bar Association, several other attorneys, Safeguard Properties of Ohio, Chase Home Finance, and the chairperson of the New York Third Judicial Department Committee on Professional Standards, among others. Compl. at 1-2. Making repeated references to identity theft, the complaint relates a series of events that are fairly incomprehensible in toto, except that it appears that plaintiff has lost her dwelling, and that her complaints to authorities of wrong-doing have met with no action that plaintiff finds satisfactory. Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to state a civil RICO claim against any of the parties identified. As relief, "Plaintiff now requests the sum of $50 million for the disgusting violation to her rights, liberties, and life from organized crime of the judicial segment of government and the harm perpetrated by these disgusting sociopaths in this court and agencies. How this crime occurs coming from California shows the corruption of the judiciary and all Judicial agencies."

Id. at 14-15.

This complaint presents precisely the sort of incoherent, "fantastic or delusional scenarios" that warrant dismissal. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (requiring dismissal of frivolous complaints). An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases