Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Flores v. United States Attorney General

United States District Court, D. Alaska

May 20, 2015

ERIC FLORES, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

SHARON L. GLEASON, District Judge.

On April 24, 2015, Eric Flores, a self-represented resident of Texas, filed a class action Petition to Challenge the Constitutionality of the First Amendment, an Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee, and a Motion to Transfer his case to the District of Columbia.[1] Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 requires the Court to review the action, and to dismiss if the action "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief."[2]

As a preliminary matter, Mr. Flores cannot file a class action without counsel.[3] Only an "attorney admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law before the courts of the State of Alaska, is eligible for admission to practice in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska."[4] And "[a] person may not engage in the practice of law in the state unless the person is licensed to practice law in Alaska and is an active member of the Alaska Bar.'"[5] Mr. Flores is not a member of the Alaska Bar, [6] and may not bring a class action in this Court.

Moreover, Mr. Flores has filed similar cases in numerous other United States District Courts.[7] In one of his filings to this Court, Mr. Flores indicates he has instituted this same civil cause of action in over twenty five United States District Courts throughout the country.[8] In the Petition Mr. Flores filed in this Court, he states:

In this particular civil case, the petitioner has established venue of jurisdiction in the United States District Court in Arkansas by asserting that; (1) the respondants residency or place of business is within the geographic location of Arkansas and that; (2) the respondants acts or omissions that give rise to the legal claims occurred from within the geographic location Arkansas where the legal claims are being filed in the United States District Court in Arkansas.
The aforementioned two jurisdictional factors satisfy the burden of establishing the prerequisite of venue of jurisdiction in the United States District Court in Arkansas for the purpose of adjudicateing the petitioners "Petition to Challenge the Constitutionality of the First Amendmentt Right to Free Exercise of Religious Belief"' for want of prosecution.[9]

Mr. Flores has made no allegations that appear to have anything to do with the District of Alaska.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, in dismissing Mr. Flores' similar case filed in that court, explains as follows:

Petitioner filed a 64-page complaint entitled "Petition to Challenge the Constitutionality of the First Amendment." A review of PACER reveals that Petitioner recently filed the same complaint in many other district courts throughout the country. He names as Respondents the U.S. Attorney General, with an address in Washington, D.C., and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with an address in Texas. Petitioner's address is also in Texas. None of the allegations in the complaint appear to have anything to do with the Western District of Kentucky.[10]

The Court concluded that "[t]he instant action must be dismissed as frivolous. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.'"[11]

Likewise, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon states:

This is not the first time Plaintiff has attempted to litigate these, or similar, claims. Plaintiff filed the Complaint currently pending before this Court with 28 other United States courthouses.... Over the years, he has filed similar claims in federal courts across the country. Those courts have summarily dismissed as frivolous Plaintiff's claims of government employees directing satellite transmissions at Mexican-American citizens.
...
This Court reaches the same conclusion. Even liberally construing Plaintiff's Complaint, it is facially frivolous.[12]

And the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri concluded as follows:

Having carefully reviewed the complaint, the Court concludes that plaintiff's factual allegations are delusional and fail to state a claim or cause of action. In this regard, the Court takes judicial notice of two substantially similar cases that plaintiff filed in the District of Maine. See Flores v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 2:13-CV-52-DBH (D.Me.2013); Flores v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 2:13-CV-7-DBH (D.Me.2013). In both cases, the District Court of Maine summarily dismissed plaintiff's allegations under § 1915(e)(2)(B) and warned plaintiff that any further frivolous filings would result in filing restrictions being placed upon him.
...
For these reasons, the instant action will be dismissed as legally frivolous and delusional under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff is warned that any further frivolous filings may result in filing restrictions being placed upon him in the Eastern District of Missouri.[13]

As with the similar cases Mr. Flores has filed in other jurisdictions, [14] the case he filed in this Court is frivolous.[15]

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. This case is DISMISSED, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), with prejudice.[16]

2. All outstanding motions are DENIED.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Judgment in this case.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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