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.

Bussie v. IRS Commissioner

United States District Court, E.D. New York

January 27, 2017

ANTHONY BUSSIE, Plaintiff,
v.
IRS COMISSIONER, Defendant. ANTHONY BUSSIE, Plaintiff,
v.
NIKKI HALEY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

          MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge

         On December 16, 2016 and January 4, 2017, Plaintiff Anthony Bussie, proceeding pro se and currently civilly detained at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, filed the two above-captioned actions against Defendants Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Commissioner in Kansas City, Missouri and Nikki Haley, [1] Governor of South Carolina, who has been proposed as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, respectively.[2] (Compl. (“First Compl.”) 1, No. 16-CV-7006, Docket Entry No. 1; Compl. (“Second Compl.”) 1, No. 17-CV-157, Docket Entry No. 1.) The actions are consolidated for the purpose of this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff's requests to proceed in forma pauperis are granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) for the limited purpose of this Memorandum and Order. For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the Complaints as frivolous and directs Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any new actions under the in forma pauperis statute without first obtaining the Court's permission to do so.

         I. Background

         a. Plaintiff's personal history

         Sometime in or around 2012, Plaintiff was detained and held in federal custody on criminal allegations that he threatened to harm a member of the United States Congress. See Bussie v. Mohamed, No. 14-CV-5454, 2014 WL 7338802, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2014) (citing United States v. Bussie, 12-CR-229 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2012)); Bussie v. Boehner, 21 F.Supp.3d 244, 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing Bussie, 12-CR-229). On or about April 2, 2015, Plaintiff was ordered civilly committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d). See Order, United States v. Bussie, No. 14-HC-2186 (E.D. N.C. Apr. 2, 2015), Docket Entry No. 16; see also United States v. Bussie, 637 F.App'x 102, 102 (4th Cir. 2016) (affirming the district court's order civilly committing Plaintiff). A United States district court judge subsequently found Plaintiff mentally incompetent to stand trial and, on April 16, 2015, dismissed the criminal charges against Plaintiff without prejudice. See Order, United States v. Bussie, No. 12-CR-229 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2015), Docket Entry No. 43. Plaintiff is currently committed to the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina.[3] (Second Compl. 1.)

         b. Complaint allegations

         In the First Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his Eight Amendment rights, asserting that the IRS office in Kansas City, Missouri, deducted money from his prison account to pay federal court filing fees. (First Compl. 2-3.) Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief. (Id. at 3.) In the Second Complaint, Plaintiff indicates that the “nature of the suit is 440 civil right[s]” and seeks an order requiring Nikki Haley to bring his “crisis, atrocity and human rights issue to the United Nations in New York.” (Second Compl. 1, 3.)

         c. Plaintiff's litigation history

         The Complaints are the thirteenth and fourteenth complaints Plaintiff has filed in the Eastern District of New York, but Plaintiff has filed over 100 actions in federal district courts across the United States and is under a filing injunction in the District of New Jersey, his pre-incarceration domicile, preventing him from filing claims based on an alleged intelligence and war contract with the United States government. See Filing Injunction Order, Conjured Up Entm't v. United States, No. 11-CV-2824 (D.N.J. July 26, 2011), Docket Entry No. 9. In the Eastern District, Plaintiff's actions have been dismissed for various reasons: as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)[4] or 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);[5] for lack of jurisdiction;[6] for failure to comply with filing requirements;[7] or as barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (“PLRA”) three strikes provision.[8]

         II. Discussion

         a. Standard of review

         A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must be mindful that a plaintiff's pleadings should be held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-105 (1976)); see Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that even after Twombly, the court “remain[s] obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally”). Nevertheless, the Court is required to dismiss sua sponte an in forma pauperis action if the Court determines it “(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).

         b. Actions are dismissed as frivolous

         “An action is frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nance v. Kelly,912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam)). “A claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory when either the claim lacks an arguable basis in law, or a dispositive ...


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.