United States District Court, E.D. New York
MEMORANDUM & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
K. BRODIE, United States District Judge
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,
Governor of South Carolina, who has been proposed as the
United States Ambassador to the United Nations,
respectively. (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.
Plaintiff's personal history
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. (Second Compl.
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.)
Plaintiff's litigation history
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) or 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); for lack of
jurisdiction; for failure to comply with filing
requirements; or as barred by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act's (“PLRA”) three strikes
Standard of review
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.
Actions are dismissed as frivolous
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 ...