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.

Hickerson v. CBS Corp.

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

June 4, 2019

JOEL SCOT HICKERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
CBS CORP. CBS NEWS, CNN TIME WARNER/AT&T HLN, DISNEY ABC NEWS, 21ST CENTURY FOX, NASH HOLDINGS LLC THE WASHINGTON POST, JEFF BEZOS, NBC UNIVERSAL ENTERPRISE INC. COMCAST, NBC NEWS, CNBC, MSNBC, NEWS CORP. FOX NEWS, WALLSTREET JOURNAL, NY POST, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          MARTHA VÁZQUEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Complaint, Doc. 1, filed December 17, 2018, and on Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed December 17, 2018 (“Application”). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Application and DISMISSES this case without prejudice.

         Application to Proceed in forma pauperis

         The statute for proceedings in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), provides that the Court may authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets the person possesses and a statement that the person is unable to pay such fees.

When a district court receives an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it should examine the papers and determine if the requirements of [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(a) are satisfied. If they are, leave should be granted. Thereafter, if the court finds that the allegations of poverty are untrue or that the action is frivolous or malicious, it may dismiss the case[.]

Menefee v. Werholtz, 368 Fed.Appx. 879, 884 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58, 60 (10th Cir. 1962). “[A]n application to proceed in forma pauperis should be evaluated in light of the applicant's present financial status.” Scherer v. Kansas, 263 Fed.Appx. 667, 669 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Holmes v. Hardy, 852 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir.1988)). “The statute [allowing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis] was intended for the benefit of those too poor to pay or give security for costs.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 344 (1948). A litigant need not be “absolutely destitute, ” and “an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339.

         Plaintiff signed an affidavit declaring that he is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings, in which he stated that: (i) his average monthly income amount during the past 12 months was $450.00; (ii) his monthly expenses total $923.00; (iii) he has $1, 400.00 in cash and $1, 187.94 in a bank account; (iv) he is unemployed; and (v) his home is in foreclosure. The Court grants Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs because he signed an affidavit declaring that he is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings, he is unemployed, and his monthly expenses exceed his monthly income.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff refers to Defendants as “the Mainstream Media” and asserts that they “are colluding with billionaire globalist elites, deep state establishment government officials, and big tech corporations to willfully violate ‘The First Amendment' and ‘Freedom of the Press' in order to lie and to push an Elite Globalist agenda.” Complaint at 2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated the First Amendment Right of Freedom of the Press by “collud[ing] with the Government to keep their Reporters from being free to report on corruption and crimes of their allies in the Democrat Party, Establishment Government and Deep State, ” and by “den[ying] the American people their right to a ‘Free Press.'” Complaint at 3. Plaintiff also alleges that “Defendants are guilty of interfering in Elections to the point that they are interfering with my right to vote by canceling my vote out and rendering my vote worthless, ” “are guilty of Negligence and of Journalistic Malpractice against its customers the citizens of this country by not performing its duty to inform the people on the crimes and corruption of their government, ” and “are guilty of Defamation of those who oppose them like President Donald trump, his administration, and allies, Trump Supporters, bloggers, independent media as well.” Complaint at 5-6.

         Plaintiff's request for relief states:

The only solution to the problem I can see is to hold the DEFENDANTS accountable for their actions through punitive damages. This number needs to be so large that it can take ownership away from some of the Mainstream Media outlets to then free them up to give a more balanced reporting on the news. The Damages to be divided among the different DEFENDANTS. I am entitled to the following Relief:
1. 30 million dollars in personal damages
2. 30 billion dollars in punitive damage[s]
3. A requirement that all media report on all government corruption and crimes of all the government officials of all parties or face fines and or civil liability 4. I will take ...

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.