Blanco v. Amazing Great Beauty of Science

Background

Carlita Blanco, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action invoking federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Blanco alleged that her claims arose in “The House Scorpio and Taurus” in 2019. She asserted that the Internal Revenue Service knew about wages owed to her, had delayed her tax returns for many years, and was using its authority to financially abuse her.

Blanco listed claims including “financial abuse,” “interagency interferences intellectual abuse,” gender abuse, sex, privacy orientation, parental abuse, mental abuse, administrative interference, obstruction of justice, environmental abuse, and case tampering. She sought five years of “GS 15 step 10 wages,” damages, and compensation for pain and suffering. She named Amazing Great Beauty of Science, the Internal Revenue Service, and the National Science Foundation as defendants. The court also noted that she had filed numerous other cases in the court, including earlier related proceedings involving some of the same defendants.

Legal standard

Because Blanco was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or otherwise presented claims over which the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief.

Court’s analysis

The court held that a complaint is factually frivolous when its factual allegations are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or delusional, or when it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory. It found that Blanco’s allegation about “The House Scorpio and Taurus” was fanciful. It further found that her claims against the IRS for intellectual abuse, gender abuse, sex, privacy orientation, parental abuse, mental abuse, administrative interference, obstruction of justice, and environmental abuse were unsupported by facts and had no legally supportable theory.

The court also noted that Blanco did not address sovereign immunity, which generally protects a federal agency from suit unless that protection has been waived. The court stated that the complaint did not mention any claim against the National Science Foundation. Overall, the court found that Blanco had not provided plausible factual support and that the complaint’s allegations rose to the level of irrationality.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined to grant leave to amend because the complaint did not suggest that Blanco possessed additional facts that could cure its defects. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action.

The court also warned that further frivolous or vexatious litigation could result in an order barring Blanco from filing new actions without paying filing fees unless she first obtained court permission. The warning was not itself stated as an imposed filing bar in this action.