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.

Grigsby v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

November 17, 2017

DENNIS MILAM GRIGSBY, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

          ENTRY GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, DISMISSING ACTION, AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

          Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge

         I. In Forma Pauperis

         The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is granted.

         II. Screening

         The complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This statute directs the Court to dismiss a complaint or claim within a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

         In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal,

[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).

         Plaintiff Dennis Milam Grigsby resides in Indianapolis, Indiana. He brings this action against the United States of America. He alleges that the United States government violated his rights “with Outrageous Government Conduct and Obstruction of Justice and Invasion of Privacy. Dkt. 1, p. 2.

         Mr. Grigsby alleges that “[t]he United States Government, after the plaintiff found out who the FBI, CIA, police and government really are, sabotaged the plaintiff's car, cut his credit and caused him to resort to crime to support himself. It arrested him instead of the Mafia and its own FBI and CIA agents.” Dkt. 1, p. 2. He then discusses his beliefs related to how “the Catholic Church is the Beast spoken about in the Bible.” Id. He continues, “The United States government further uses demons to identify and track the very criminals they create who figure out what the government really is.” Id. “The demons and Satan are one with the government and people as doctors have not helped some of the plaintiff's conditions when they should have known what to do. The plaintiff had to find his own cures on the internet and tell the doctor what to do and the doctor still would [ ] do it. It is all one big Devil.” Id.

         Another paragraph in the complaint gives the reader a flavor of Mr. Grigsby's claims:

“The plaintiff is suing because the local police and the Federal Government are one and the same so state cases are as relevant as the plaintiff's Federal cases because they both use demon possessed police officers just like the Bible says to ‘Go around like a roaring lion to see whom he can devour.' Knowing real history combined with the ‘Substantial assistance' statute protects us.”

Dkt. 1, p. 3.

         He further alleges that he was “repeatedly arrested in Dayton, Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio and was charged with crimes the police knew he hadn't committed. This ‘spy game' continued until (as stated before) the plaintiff found out how to defeat the government.” Id. He also contends that “the government is made up of ‘principalities and rulers of darkness.” These ‘rulers of darkness” use ESP to defeat, find and even steal business ideas which is why ...


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.