[Nonmember submission: manually posted by your gracious moderator]
110K8W
Print Request: Current Document: 1
Time of Request: June 23, 2000 11:56 am EST
Number of Lines: 55
Job Number: 40:0:10677864
Client ID/Project Name:
Research Information:
Federal and State Caselaw
name(mayo and satan)
Note:
This is sent to you from Kelly Gist of the Rangernet. Interesting reading!
PAGE
1
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES ex rel. Gerald MAYO v. SATAN AND HIS STAFF
Misc. No. 5357
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
54 F.R.D. 282; 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10548
December 3, 1971
COUNSEL:
[**1]
Gerald Mayo, Pro Se.
JUDGES:
Weber, District Judge.
OPINIONBY:
WEBER
OPINION:
[*282] 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 [**2] 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.
PAGE
2
54 F.R.D. 282, *283; 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10548, **2
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
[**3]
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.
_______
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Eat the hay & spit out the sticks! - A#1's mule" RTKB&G4JC!
http://rangernet.org Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
