Gilberti v. Bush

Background

Joseph D. Gilberti filed the action without a lawyer while detained in the Sarasota County Jail. The complaint named numerous defendants, including George W. Bush, Donna Marie Padar, the Sarasota County Commission, the Tampa Central Command Macdill Air Force Base, Dick Cheney, the Central Intelligence Agency, the United Nations, New York City entities, Mayor Eric Adams, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Greenberg Traurig Law, Lawrence D. Fink Black Rock Investment Group, LLC, Harvard University, Yale University, several public figures, religious organizations, and the Pentagon.

Gilberti invoked federal-question jurisdiction and asserted claims described as terrorism, fraud, theft, regional water-supply eugenics, racketeering, negligence, quieting title, and trespass and ejectment under Florida law. He alleged that the defendants had exerted undue influence, interfered with his civil rights and his children, and participated in a conspiracy involving his property, water-supply plans, government agencies, courts, law enforcement, universities, and corporations. He sought investigations and arrests, money damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

The court had previously allowed Gilberti to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court noted that prisoners must still pay the full filing fee even when granted permission to proceed without prepayment.

Screening standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief against governmental entities or their officers or employees. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), a court must dismiss a complaint, or part of one, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from that relief. A court must also dismiss an action when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court stated that it must read complaints filed without a lawyer generously and interpret them to present the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations. That rule did not require accepting allegations the court found irrational or wholly incredible.

Ruling

The court found that Gilberti’s allegations did not plausibly allege a violation of his rights. It concluded that he supplied no plausible factual support for his allegations of a widespread conspiracy to kidnap him and attack people’s drinking-water needs. The court determined that the claims were irrational and therefore frivolous.

The court declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by changing the complaint. It dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The opinion does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation.

The court separately denied the motion for an extension of time to serve the complaint as unnecessary and directed that motion to be terminated. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment.