United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
LEONARD T. STRAND, CHIEF JUDGE
case is before me pursuant to plaintiff Jesse Kaiser's
pro se complaint (Doc. No. 1).
has a long history before this court. On March 12, 2014, he
was sentenced to 87 months for conspiracy to distribute
marijuana. CR11-0107-LRR, Doc. No. 107. On April 13,
2016, Kaiser filed a pro se civil complaint against Assistant
United States Attorney Anthony Morfitt. C16-0053-LTS,
Doc. No. 1. In that complaint, Kaiser made various
unsupported claims regarding the court's jurisdiction,
consistent with various fringe theories such as those of the
Sovereign Citizen, Posse Comitatus or Common Law Court
groups. See Bey v. State, 847 F.3d 559, 561 (7th
Cir. 2017) (discussing Sovereign Citizen ideology),
United States v. Hart, 545 F.Supp. 470, 474 (D.N.D.
1982), aff'd, 701 F.2d 749 (8th Cir. 1983)
(discussing Common Law groups); see also Michelle
Theret, Sovereign Citizens: A Homegrown Terrorist Threat
and Its Negative Impact on South Carolina, 63 S.C. L.
Rev. 853, 861 (2012). On June 3, 2016, I dismissed
Kaiser's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
November 18, 2016, Kaiser paid the $400 filing fee and filed
another pro se complaint. See C16-0195-LTS, Doc. No.
1. Kaiser made the same frivolous jurisdictional arguments.
On February 21, 2017, I again dismissed Kaiser's case
pursuant to § 1915A. C16-0195-LTS, Doc. No. 2. Kaiser
appealed and the dismissal was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals. C16-0195-LTS, Doc. No. 10.
September 26, 2018, Kaiser filed a third pro se complaint.
C18-0104-LTS, Doc. No. 1. Kaiser paid the filing fee and made
the same bogus jurisdictional arguments. On January 24, 2019,
I entered an order observing that Kaiser had not served the
summons (C18-0104-LTS, Doc. No. 6) and that his father signed
and returned the Proof of Service form in an apparent attempt
to comply with LR 41(a)(1). Because simply returning the
Proof of Service form complied neither with LR 41(a) nor
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a), I gave Kaiser a final 21 days to cure the
service issue. C18-0104-LTS, Doc. No. 7. Kaiser did not
answer the court's order. Accordingly, on March 4, 2019,
I dismissed the case. C18-0104-LTS, Doc. No. 8. Kaiser filed
his fourth, and current, pro se complaint on April 29, 2019.
INITIAL REVIEW STANDARD
se complaint must be liberally construed. See Hughes v.
Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam); Smith v. St.
Bernards Reg'l Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th
Cir. 1994); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912,
914 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining that, although pro se
complaints must be liberally construed, they must allege
sufficient facts to support the claims that are advanced). In
addition, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless, they
must be weighed in favor of the plaintiff. See Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). A court, however,
can dismiss at any time a complaint filed in forma pauperis
if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. §
is “frivolous” if it “lacks an arguable
basis in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); accord Cokeley v. Endell,
27 F.3d 331, 332 (8th Cir. 1994). An action fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Accordingly, a court
may review the complaint and dismiss sua sponte those claims
that fail “‘to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level. . . .'”, Parkhurst v.
Tabor, 569 F.3d 861, 865 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 555), or that are premised on
meritless legal theories or clearly lack any factual basis,
see Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. See, e.g., Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 27 (considering
frivolousness); Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751
(8th Cir. 1992) (concluding that a district court may dismiss
an action if an affirmative defense exists).
initial matter, there is (again) a service issue. Plaintiff
filed the complaint on April 29, 2019. Doc. No. 1. On that
same date, plaintiff's father, Jeff Kaiser, served the
complaint on defendant and filed the Proof of Service form.
Doc. No. 3. However, instead of Jeff Kaiser signing and
dating the Proof of Service form under “Server's
Signature, ” that blank is filled by “Jesse
Kaiser” with a date of April 29, 2019. Obviously,
plaintiff did not actually serve the summons, since he is
incarcerated. Moreover, a party to the action cannot serve
the summons. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(c)(2). However, because plaintiff's claim is
plainly frivolous, I need not address this issue.
begins his complaint:
Now Comes Aggrieved parties (U.C.C. § 1-201 (2))
Jesse-Louis: Kaiser© TM (hereinafter Aggrieved party),
Sui Juris, Secured Party (U.C.C. § 9-105), NON-PERSON
(U.C.C. § 1-201 (27)). NON-RESIDENT, NON-DEBTOR (28
U.S.C. § 3002(4). NON-CORPERATED. NON-FIXTION,
NON-SUBJECT, NON-PARTICIANT in any government programs, a
Living flesh and blood Man standing on the ground Sovereign,
NON-CITIZEN, under Special Appearance (Rule 8 (E)) not
generally, NON-DEFENDANT (U.C.C. § 1-201 (14),
Holder-In-Due-Course (U.C.C. § 3-302 (A) (2) of all
documentation. (U.C.C. § 5-102 (6) of the
“Entity” Cestui Que Vie trust Jesse-Louis:
Kaiser© TM. representing the Corporate Fiction:
No. 1 at 6. He goes on to make the same nonsensical legalese
arguments about jurisdiction that he made in his prior,
rejected cases. Accordingly, plaintiff's case is
frivolous and must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(A) for the reasons set in my previous orders. See
e.g., C16-0053-LTS, Doc. No. 5. Additionally, at this
point, plaintiff's action is also barred by the principal
of res judicata. See Urban v. Sells, No.