The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeffrey L. VIKEN United States District Judge
Plaintiff Clarence Voigt filedan application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket 1). Proceeding in forma pauperis is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Subsection (e)(2) of the statute provides:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, . . . the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that--
(B) the action or appeal--(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Subsection (e)(2) allows the court sua sponte to review a complaint filed with an in forma pauperis application to determine if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant or defendants who are immune from such relief.
Attached to Mr. Voigt's motion is a proposed forty-one page complaint. (Docket 1-1). Mr. Voigt seeks "declaratory, injunctive relief, compensatory relief including punitive damages and attorneys fees and costs, to redress defendants violations of plaintiff's federally protected rights ans [sic] state common law claims." Id. at ¶ 1. The complaint asserts these claims "against defendants in their individual capacity as a federal judicial officer, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1331, in claims arising from violations of federal Constitutional rights guaranteed in the First, Nineth [sic], Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution 42 U.S.C. 1983 (under color of law). [sic] and redressable [sic] pursuant to Bivens v. Six unknown federal Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 338 (1971)." Id. at ¶ 2. The complaint cites numerous sections of the United States Constitution, federal law and North Dakota state law as the basis for plaintiff's claims. Id. passim. The complaint acknowledges each of the named defendants is either a federal district judge, federal magistrate judge, employee of the Federal District Court for the District of North Dakota, employee of the United States Department of Justice, or employee of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Id. passim. Mr. Voigt alleges each of the named individuals was "acting under the color of state law" in their official capacities at the time of the alleged conduct. Id. passim.
A pro se complaint must be liberally construed. "[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleading drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The court takes judicial notice of Mr. Voigt's series of cases filed in the District of the North Dakota.*fn1 Despite each case being decided against him, Mr. Voigt did not appeal any of those adverse rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Those cases, as well as the current complaint, are an expression of Mr. Voigt's dissatisfaction with the State of North Dakota in handling a worker's compensation claim and his unhappiness with the federal district court's rejection of his pro se filings. See also Docket 1-1 passim.
The complaint contains thirteen claims summarized as follows: First Claim Defendants Klein and Erickson deprived Mr. Voigt of his rights under the color of law. 18 U.S.C. § 243;
Second Claim Defendants Klein and Erickson violated Mr. Voigt's constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985;
Third Claim Defendants Klein and Erickson violated Mr. Voigt's constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983-due process;
Fourth Claim Defendants Klein and Erickson violated Mr. Voigt's constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. ...