Opinion
Civil Action No. 11 1578
08-31-2011
Warren Daniel Clinton, Petitioner, v. United States of America, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of petitioner's pro se petition and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Petitioner is a federal prisoner at the so-called Supermax facility in Florence, Colorado. He has submitted a document captioned "Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241." Beyond the caption, the petition bears no resemblance to a habeas petition and, thus, is construed as a civil complaint subject to the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"). The PLRA requires the Court to screen and dismiss a prisoner's complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b)(1). For the following reasons, the Court will grant petitioner's IFP application and will dismiss the case.
Petitioner titles his first ground for relief "Extrajudicial Killing," and alleges, inter alia, that the United States "willingly engaged in acts of extrajudicial killing against the sovereign, Warren Daniel Clinton, causing [his] . . . exposure to torture . . . ." Pet. at 2. Petitioner next purports to renounce his United States citizenship while also "disavow[ing] [his] allegiance to all foreign powers . . .," id. at 3, and then presents a "Certificate of Death," in which he "hereby pronounce and declare the artificial person, straw-man, corporation . . . 'Warren Daniel Clinton' dead . . . nunc pro tunc to the date of its' [sic] birth . . . ." Id. at 4. The petition goes on in similar bizarre fashion for another eight pages.
Petitioner has stated no basis for any type of relief. The Court previously denied his application for a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of State to issue him a "Certificate of Loss of Nationality." See Clinton v. Clinton, Civ. Action No. 10-1009 (D.D.C. Nov. 29, 2010) (dismissing for failure to state a claim). The instant petition fares no better and, in fact, presents the type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
________________________________
United States District Judge