Roy v. United States , 238 F. App'x 908 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2007 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    9-6-2007
    Roy v. USA
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 07-2293
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
    Recommended Citation
    "Roy v. USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 467.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/467
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    ALD-355                                                   NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    NOS. 07-2293 & 07-2397
    ________________
    KAMAL KARNA ROY,
    a/k/a Jungle Democracy,
    Appellant
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; NEW YORK, NEW YORK;
    PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH; DICK CHENEY; LISA NISBORN ROY;
    HARRIETSTOWN HOUSING AUTHORITY; CITIZENS BANK; KELLI
    PETERSON; NANCY WOOD; RICHMOND COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY;
    RICHARD OSINDACH; HON. JEFFEREY ROMES; JAMES BAROWSKI;
    THE NEW YORK TIMES; ESTELLE KRAUSHANI; WORKERS COMPENSATION
    BOARD, NEW YORK; HON. JOHN ROBERTS; KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN;
    TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO.; NYS JUDICIAL COMMISSION; ATTORNEY
    TRAVELERS INS; US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; EXECUTIVE HEAD
    STATE INSURANCE FUND; NBT BANK; CHAIRPERSON TRAVELERS
    INSURANCE CO.;
    NY STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT; PRIME MINISTER INDIA; HSBC BANK;
    SOMMATH CHATTURJEE; THE STATE INSURANCE FUND; GOD;
    DOUGLAS J. HAYDES; DEBBIE EORIYAHO
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal From the United States District Court
    For the District of Delaware
    (D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-00685)
    District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson
    _______________________________________
    Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
    Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    August 23, 2007
    Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES AND COWEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
    (Filed: September 6, 2007 )
    _______________________
    OPINION
    _______________________
    PER CURIAM
    Appellant Kamal Karna Roy a/k/a Jungle Democracy and other aliases, filed a pro
    se complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. He was
    granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    . Roy filed his lawsuit
    against numerous defendants, including God, the United States of America, United States
    President George Bush, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John G.
    Roberts, the Prime Minister of India, agencies and officials of the State of New York,
    Kentucky Fried Chicken, and The New York Times. Roy’s complaint consists of what
    appear to be excerpts of his previous lawsuits.1 Among other things, the complaint
    contains references to discrimination, deprivation of government benefits, corruption, the
    loss of the power of God to the rulers of society, actions taken by President Bush, Roy’s
    exception to Chief Justice Roberts being named to the United States Supreme Court, and
    the government of India’s violation of civil rights concerning pension benefits. Roy
    sought “up to one-half billion dollars” in United States currency in damages. The District
    Court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B). Roy
    1
    The District Court’s order contains a list of Roy’s numerous lawsuit filed throughout
    the United States and its territories.
    2
    appeals 2 and has been granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
    The federal in forma pauperis statute permits an indigent litigant to appeal without
    paying the administrative costs of proceeding with the appeal. 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    . The
    statute protects against abuses of this privilege by allowing the appeals court to dismiss
    the appeal if it is frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 
    504 U.S. 25
    , 27 (1992). An action is
    frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
    
    490 U.S. 319
    , 325 (1989). We may dismiss the appeal where the factual allegations are
    delusional, irrational, or wholly incredible. Hernandez, 
    504 U.S. at 33
    . Upon review of
    the record, we agree with the District Court’s assessment of the complaint and conclude
    that the appeal is “clearly baseless” under the Neitzke standard.
    We will dismiss the appeal as frivolous under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B).
    2
    The District Court dismissed the complaint by memorandum order entered April 13,
    2007, as later amended by its revised memorandum order entered April 24, 2007. Roy
    filed a notice of appeal and an amended notice of appeal concerning these orders. The
    two appeals have been consolidated for all purposes.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-2293

Citation Numbers: 238 F. App'x 908

Filed Date: 9/6/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023