FLORES v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT THE APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES

DERRICK K. WATSON, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff pro se Eric Flores's ("Flores") Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees (the "Application"), filed on August 1, 2013, in conjunction with his 117-page Complaint captioned "Federal Tort Complaint Against Torture" ("Complaint"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Application as moot and DISMISSES the Complaint WITH PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

Flores, a Texas resident, alleges in the Complaint that unnamed federal government employees have directed genetic code-altering satellite transmissions from outer space at Mexican-Americans. He seeks to file a class action, with himself as the representative, for the class of Mexican-American citizens who are being targeted. Complaint at 1-2. Flores alleges:

Complaint at 10. The same or similar iterations are repeated throughout the Complaint.

Flores has sought to institute the same or similar actions in many other district courts. See Flores v. U.S. Att'y Gen., CV 13-167 GRA-JDA, 2013 WL 1786392, at *2 n.1 (D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2013) (citing numerous cases). The District of New Hampshire recently detailed some of Flores's litigation history in its own order dismissing Flores's complaint:

Flores v. U.S. Att'y Gen., CV 13-00001 SM, 2013 WL 3190573, at *2 (D.N.H. June 20, 2013).

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court subjects every in forma pauperis proceeding to mandatory screening and orders the dismissal of the case if it 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) "not only permits but requires" the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim).

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se; therefore, the Court liberally construes his pleadings. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) ("The Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the `inartful pleading' of pro se litigants.") (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam)).

The Court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on its own motion. See Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) ("A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under [Rule] 12(b)(6). Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief."); Ricotta v. Cal., 4 F.Supp.2d 961, 968 n.7 (S.D. Cal. 1998) ("The Court can dismiss a claim sua sponte for a Defendant who has not filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).").

Having screened the Complaint, the Court concludes that the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. The Complaint fails to state a claim and Flores's allegations are frivolous, irrational, and clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). Notably, Flores's allegations in the Complaint do not differ from those that have been uniformly dismissed with prejudice by federal district courts around the country.1 See Flores v. U.S. Att'y Gen., CV 13-00145 RRB (D. Alaska August 23, 2013) (citing and quoting from several cases all dismissing the same or similar allegations). Therefore, the Court joins the long list of other districts which have dismissed with prejudice Flores's complaints and denied his requests to proceed without prepayment of fees.

Because the Court dismisses the Complaint with prejudice, the Application is consequently denied as moot.

CONCLUSION

The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Complaint and DENIES AS MOOT Flores's Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.