Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Richman v. United States Government

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

April 16, 2018

ELROY LADELL RICHMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Defendant.

          ORDER

          SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dated May 24, 2017 (the “Report”). (ECF No. 7.) The Report recommends that the Court sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff Elroy Richman's claims against Defendant United States. (Id. at 18.) Plaintiff filed his objection to the Report on June 1, 2017. (ECF No. 8.)

         Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint, filed on June 22, 2017 (ECF No. 9), Motion to Supplement, filed on December 8, 2017 (ECF No. 11), and Motion to Amend Complaint, filed on January 25, 2018 (ECF No. 12).

         For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint and Motion to Amend Complaint are DENIED. The Report is ADOPTED and the action is DISMISSED.

         I. Background

         On May 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges that:

A biological internal science device was strategically placed in my body by [the] West Memphis, Arkansas [government]. It means that someone high in government authorized this device to have me fall in line with them so that I could work for government again with a device forcing or speaking what they want out of me. Instead it's the other way around. I don't have a job but I am being set up by these men . . . . I cannot beat the device that was put in me by U.S. government in court because sciences and medicines and the biological internal science device blocks my thoughts when I write things down . . . .

(Id. at 3.)[1] Plaintiff seeks to “[s]ue the states involved in taking away my freedom of speech and for using devices and medicine and science to do so. And for also putting me in continual distress for everyday they use my body as host to talk out of.” (Id. at 3.)

         Also on May 15, 2017, Plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) On May 24, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6.)

         On May 24, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham entered the Report. (ECF No. 7.) The Report recommends “that the complaint be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).” (Id. at 18.) The Report recommends that the Complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff's “[C]omplaint presents a narrative of events that are implausible, frivolous, and devoid of merit.” (Id. at 17.) The Report concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim because “[Plaintiff's] § 1983 claim is not brought against any person acting under color of state law.” (Id.)

         II. Jurisdiction & Standard of Review

         A. Motion to Amend

         Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend shall be freely granted when justice requires. Leave should be granted under Rule 15(a) unless there is “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.” Fo-man v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “A proposed amendment is futile if the amendment could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 601 F.3d 505, 512 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

         B. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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