Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Flores v. United States Attorney General

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

September 7, 2018

ERIC FLORES, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL and FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendants.

          DEE BENSON DISTRICT JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          PAUL M. WARNER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).[1] At the outset, the court notes that Eric Flores (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this case. Consequently, the court will construe his pleadings liberally. See, e.g., Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003). The court also notes that Plaintiff has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (“IFP Statute”).[2] Before the court is the review of Plaintiff's complaint[3] under the authority of the IFP Statute.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff's complaint is extremely disjointed and confusing. It is captioned as a “PETITION TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT” and names as Defendants the United States Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[4] Plaintiff contends that he is “the representative party to seek relief from imminent danger such as death on behalf of a protected class of mexican american [sic] citizens of the United States that is so numerious [sic] that joinder of all members is impracticable.”[5] Plaintiff asserts that his complaint presents two questions: (1) “[w]hether governmental interference with a persons [sic] marriage resulting in separation of that marriage can be constituted as a constitutional deprivation of the first amendment right to free exercise of religious belief under the domestic legal pretext, ” and (2) “[w]hether governmental interference with a persons [sic] communication to the state and federal law enforcement agencies so as to prevent an investigation of a crime committed against that person can be constituted as a constitutional deprivation of the first amendment right to freedom of speech.”[6]

         In support of his claims, Plaintiff repeatedly alleges that an “organized group of executive employees of the federal government” used “advanced technology with a direct signal to the satelite [sic] in outerspace [sic] that has the capability of calculateing [sic] genetic code” to cause certain physical and mental effects on Plaintiff and other individuals that lasted “long durations exceeding” “calendar years” or “calendar days.”[7] Some examples of Plaintiff's allegations concerning those physical and mental effects include:

• “severe mental pain . . . equivalent in intensity to the explosion of a nuclear weapon within [Plaintiff's] mental state of mind[;][8]
• “severe heart pain . . . equivalent in intensity to cardiac and raspatory [sic] failure leading to heart attack almost resulting [Plaintiff's] death[;]”[9]
• “severe mental pain . . . equivalent in intensity to an electric chair execution leading to brain hemerage [sic] resulting in [Plaintiff's] death[;][10]
• taking “physical control of” Plaintiff's grandfather's “mental state of mind so as to compel him into an act of dures [sic] by a calculated procedure to have sexual intercourse with another female person other than his common wife . . . the mother of all his children” and “sexual intercourse without his effective and consent or awareness with another female person other than his wife . . . the mother of all his children[;]”[11]
• taking “physical control of” Plaintiff's uncle's “mental state of mind so as to compel him into an act of dures [sic] by a calculated procedure sexual intercourse without his effective and consent or awareness with another female person constituteing [sic] unjustified governmental interference with his first amendment right to free exercise of religious belief to not commit adultery by having sex with another female person other than his wife the mother of all his children[;]”[12]
• taking “physical control of” an individual's “mental state of mind by a calculated procedure to have sexuall [sic] intercourse with another person constituteing [sic] sexual assault in the first degree[;]”[13]
• taking “physical control of” several individuals' “mental state of mind so as to compel [them] into an act of dures [sic] by a calculated procedure without [their] consent or awareness to have sexual intercourse with another person of Mexican American national origin . . . constituteing [sic] sexual assault in the first degree[;]”[14]
• taking “physical control of” an individual's “mental state of mind so as to compel her into an act of dures [sic] by a calculated procedure to have sexual intercourse without her consent or awareness with another person of African American national origin by the nickname of FAME that is directly related to a member of the organized group of executive employees of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.