United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. Rosenstengel Chief U.S. District Judge.
October 9, 2019, Plaintiff William Lee Grant, II, filed a
complaint against the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Special Collection Service, and the State of Illinois (Doc.
2). In his complaint, he made numerous rambling and
non-sensical allegations about wrongdoings of various public
figures. Id. Along with the complaint, Grant filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) (Doc. 3). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1), a federal district court may allow a civil case
to proceed without prepayment of fees if the movant
“submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all
assets he possesses [showing] that he is unable to pay such
fees or give security therefor.” Grant has not
completely satisfied this requirement, because he has not
itemized his monthly expenditures. Instead, he merely states
that he received $192.00 per month in Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program benefits from February 2019 to January
2019 (Doc. 3 at 2). He identifies no other source of income
(Id. at 1-3).
Section 1915(e)(2) requires careful threshold scrutiny of the
complaint filed by an IFP plaintiff. The Court must dismiss
any complaint if the allegation of poverty is untrue or if
the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Id.; see also Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d
761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003) (“District judges have ample
authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective
suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal
expense.”). Thus, resolution of Grant's motion for
IFP requires the undersigned District Judge to closely review
the allegations of his petition. Grant's claims fail this
additional level of review.
the fundamental problem is that Grant's allegations are
frivolous. Grant detailed his attempts to file a similar
rendition of this complaint on numerous occasions before
courts across the country, including previously in this Court
(Doc. 2 at 19-27).Nothing about this most recent filing
before the Court transforms his claims from frivolous to
non-frivolous. Grant makes pages of bare allegations in non
sequitur form. He claims, for instance, that he was forced to
“act gay” under duress, that former Governor
Bruce Rauner bribed former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to hide
national security reports during his time in the White House
under President Bill Clinton, and that Courtney Love killed
her husband Kurt Cobain (of the defunct rock band Nirvana).
Appended to his complaint, Grant also included a copy of a
dismissal from another court, as well as various documents of
recommendation, resignation, and termination of employment.
plaintiff repeatedly files similar frivolous litigation, as
Grant has done here, the Court finds it unnecessary to grant
leave to refile an amendment. The Court is not required to
allow frivolous litigation to bog down the judiciary. See
e.g. Walton v. Walker, 364 Fed.Appx. 256, 257-58 (7th
Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of
plaintiff's sprawling 82-page complaint considering his
history of meritless litigation), see also Chung v. KPMG
LLP, 104 Fed.Appx. 576, 577 (7th Cir. 2004) (dismissal
with prejudice was warranted when plaintiff had a history of
redundant and frivolous filings). In fact, Grant should be
warned that he is walking on a razor's edge by filing
complaints like the one in this case. The United States
Supreme Court has gone so far in the past as to ban pro
se litigants from making future filings where they have
exhibited a pattern of frivolous and redundant litigious
conduct. Vey v. Clinton, 520 U.S. 937, 937-38 (1997)
(denying a pro se litigant IFP status and banning
her from making future filings without paying the fee when
she had filed 26 frivolous claims over 6.5 years regarding
the actions of various government entities and actors). There
is no reason this Court could not do the same if Grant's
abusive conduct continues. See Support Sys. Intern., Inc.
v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).
Grant's Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED,
and his complaint is DISMISSED with
prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall close this case
and enter judgment accordingly.
IS SO ORDERED.
 He has filed other complaints before
the Central District of California, the District of Columbia,
the Northern District of Georgia; the Northern District of
Illinois; the Central District of Illinois; the District of
Maryland; the District of Nebraska; the Eastern District of
New York; the Southern District of New York; the Eastern
District of Texas; the Northern District of Texas; the
Southern District of Texas; the Western District of Texas;
the Eastern District of Virginia; and the Court of Federal
Claims. He has appealed to the Second Circuit; the Fourth
Circuit; the ...