No class action, no proof of jurisdiction, no address for defendant,
Court does not reach question of frivolessness.
United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.
UNITED STATES ex rel. Gerald MAYO
v.
SATAN AND HIS STAFF.
Misc. No. 5357.
Civil rights action against Satan and his servants who allegedly placed deliberate obstacles in plaintiff's path and caused his downfall, wherein plaintiff prayed for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The District Court, Weber, J., held that plaintiff would not be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis who in view of questions of personal jurisdiction over defendant, propriety of class action, and plaintiff's failure to include instructions for directions as to service of process.
Prayer denied.
West Headnotes
Federal Civil Procedure 
2734
Plaintiff would not be granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis in civil rights action against Satan and his
servants, who allegedly placed deliberate obstacles in plaintiff's path and
caused his downfall, in view of questions of personal jurisdiction over
defendant, propriety of class action, and plaintiff's failure to include
instructions for directions as to service of process. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.
rule 23, 28 U.S.C.A.; 18 U.S.C.A. § 241; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
*282 Gerald Mayo, pro se.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
WEBER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, alleging jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 241, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prays for leave to file a complaint for violation of his civil
rights *283 in forma pauperis.
He alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery
and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed
deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall.
Plaintiff alleges that by reason of these acts Satan has deprived
him of his constitutional rights.
We feel that the application to file and proceed in forma pauperis
must be denied. Even if plaintiff's
complaint reveals a prima facie recital of the infringement of the civil rights
of a citizen of the United States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint
reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether plaintiff may obtain
personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of
residence in this district. While the
official reports disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as
defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this
defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented
by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the
plaintiff was a foreign prince with no standing to sue in an American
Court. This defense was overcome by
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Whether or not this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are
unable to determine at this time.
If such action were to be allowed we would also face the question
of whether it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet the requirements of Fed.R. of Civ.P. 23 that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to the class, and the
claims of the representative party is typical of the claims of the class.
We cannot now determine if the representative party will fairly protect
the interests of the class.
We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his
complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for
directions as to service of process.
For the foregoing reasons we must exercise our discretion to
refuse the prayer of plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.
It is ordered that the complaint be given a miscellaneous docket
number and leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.
54 F.R.D. 282