Michael Fitzgerald Hubbard v. Duluth Township, MN, Legal, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Michael Fitzgerald Hubbard’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), finding that its allegations of a wide-ranging conspiracy were fanciful, fantastic, and clearly baseless. The court denied Hubbard’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for a protective order as moot, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court also warned that continued filing of frivolous or meritless complaints could result in filing restrictions.

Holdings

1. The complaint must be dismissed as frivolous because its allegations of a vast conspiracy among numerous governmental entities, including claims of tracking software, courtroom impersonation, manipulated phones, and interference with medication, are fanciful, fantastic, irrational, and wholly incredible, and therefore lack an arguable basis in fact.
2. The IFP application and motion for a protective order are denied as moot because the complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
3. The court may restrict a litigant who repeatedly files frivolous claims from initiating new actions unless represented by counsel or granted prior judicial approval, and Hubbard was warned that continued frivolous filings could result in such a restriction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint was subject to dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2. Whether Hubbard's IFP application and motion for a protective order should be denied as moot after dismissal of the complaint.
3. Whether the court should warn Hubbard that continued frivolous filings could lead to restrictions on initiating future lawsuits.

Disposition

dismissed