GOD JUANITA GRIER Plaintiff v. PRES. RONALD, MRS. NANCY REAGAN, U.S. STATES GOVERNMENT AND CONGRESS, CITIZEN OF U. STATES & FOREIGN COUNTRIES Defendants
CIVIL ACTION No. 86-0724
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27362
April 1, 1986
COUNSEL:  [*1] 

pp. Philadelphia State Hospital, 8-Ward, P.O. Box 6000, Philadelphia, PA 19114.

OPINIONBY: FULLAM

OPINION: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FULLAM, J.

Plaintiff has filed" a pro se 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights complaint accompanied by a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Since it appears plaintiff is unable to prepay the cost for commencement of this suit, leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff names as defendants President and Mrs. Reagan, the United States Government, Congress, and the citizens of the United States and foreign countries. Her complaint is lengthy, rambling, and at times incomprehensible. It seems that plaintiff's basic claims are that she is god of the Universe and that the citizens of the Universe, former Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and President Reagan have perpetrated crimes against and Carter, and President Reagan have perpetrated crimes against her through the use of an electronic eavesdropping device. The majority of her complaint is composed of a request for relief in which she asks that the court award her items ranging from a size sixteen mink coat and diamond jewelry to a three bedroom home in the suburbs and a catered [*2]  party at the Spectrum in Philadelphia.

In evaluating complaints filed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, the in forma pauperis statute, the court may make a determination under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d) whether "the complaint states a claim which has a reasonable probability of succeeding on the merits." Daves v. Scranton, 66 F.R.D. 5, 7 (E.D. Pa. 1975). See also United States ex rel. Walker v. Fayette County, 599 F.2d 573, 575 (3d Cir. 1979)'(per curiam). After reviewing the instant complaint, it is clear that the complaint is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d) and dismissal is appropriate. Even construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the claims set forth by plaintiff demonstrate a "patent lack of merit ... [and] want of realistic chances of ultimate success," warranting dismissal. Jones v. Ault, 67 F.R.D. 124, 127 (S.D. Ga. 1974), aff'd 516 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1975) (plaintiff alleged that the prison had a machine that combed his body and monitored sounds and voices, tuning into his brain and reading his mind). See also Neal v. Miller, 542 F. Supp. 79 (S.D. Ill. 1982) (plaintiff's contentions regarding metal conductors and wires [*3]  controlling his body operated by remote control deemed "illusory"); Gordon v. Secretary of State, 460 F. Supp. 1026 (D. N.J. 1978) (plaintiff's challenge to United States presidential election dismissed for "obvious reasons"). Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d).

Included with plaintiff's complaint is a Notice of Appeal to the United States Supreme Court. n1 Direct appeal from an interlocutary or final judgment by a federal district court to the United States Supreme Court is possible, provided that the appellant meets the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. Sections 1252 or 1253. For an appeal under Section 1252, there are four conditions: 1) the judgment must have been rendered by a federal court, 2) an Act of Congress must have been held unconstitutional, 3) the judgment must have been rendered in a civil proceeding, and 4) the government must have been a party. 12 J. Moore, H. Bendix and B. Ringle, Moore's Federal Practice paragraph 411.11 et seq. (2d ed. 1982). Plaintiff's case fails to satisfy the requisites for an appeal under Section 1252, in that there has been no ruling of any kind in the case,  [*4]  much less one declaring an Act of Congress unconstitutional. As for an appeal under Section 1253, it must involve the decision of a three judge panel. No such panel has been established for this action. Thus, plaintiff clearly has no valid grounds upon which to base an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.



n1 The Notice of Appeal also was filed in C.A. 85-3408, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, and C.A. 85-3409, a civil rights action that was dismissed as frivolous.

As a general rule, "[a]n appeal to the Supreme Court is deemed taken when the notice of appeal is filed with the District Court Clerk. At that point, the Supreme Court takes jurisdiction over the matter." Associated General Contractors of California v. Secretary of Commerce, 77 F.R.D. 31, 36 (C.D. Cal. 1977), vacated on other grounds, 438 U.S. 909 (1978). Consequently, the district court is divested of jurisdiction. However, an exception to the general rule lies where "the deficiency in a notice of appeal, by reason of untimeliness, lack of essential recitals, or reference to a non-appealable order, is clear to the district court." Ruby v.  [*5]  Secretary of United States Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1011 (1967). Such defects render the appeal a "nullity", and the district court may ignore the appeal, retain jurisdiction and proceed with the case. Venen v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117, 121 (3d Cir. 1985); United States v. Hitchmon, 602 F.2d 689, 693 (5th Cir. 1979) (en banc); Arthur Anderson and Co. v. Finesilver, 546 F.2d 338, 340 (10th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1096 (1977); Ruby v. Secretary of United States Navy, supra; Manuel San Juan Co. v. American Intern. Underwriters, 331 F. Supp. 1050, 1054 (D. Puerto Rico 1971), aff'd 494 F.2d 317 (lst Cir. 1974). This is precisely the course of action being followed in the instant case.

Since plaintiff's appeal of the instant civil action is an appeal wherein no order has yet been entered, compounded by the fact that the requirements for an appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1252 or 1253 have not been met, the court retains jurisdiction, enabling it to dismiss this action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d).

ORDER

AND NOW, this 31st day of March 1986, in accordance with the Memorandum filed this [*6]  date,

IT IS ORDERED that;

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 2. This complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d).