FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JUN i 5 2010
Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
Derian Douglas Hickman, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
Civil Action No. 10 1005
U.S. Attorney General Texas Child Support )
et aI., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff, Derian Douglas Hickman, filed a pro se complaint ~md application to
proceed without prepayment of fees. Hickman's application to proceed without prepayment of
fees will be granted, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous, and the plaintiff will be
directed to show cause in writing why he should not be prospectively barred from filing without
prepayment of fees.
Hickman, known to this court from prior frivolous and otherwise defective filings, has
filed the instant complaint against the United States Attorney General Texas Child Support, the
Federal Election Commission, and the "Supreme Court of the United States in Washington,
D.C." CompI. at 1. In its entirety, the complaint alleges as follows:
Rquesting verification of previous elections as governor. Freedom liberty
and Independence party elections. Nominations for president ofthe United States
of America and Federal Election Commission filings involving eJlection as D.C.
councilman[,] D.C. Commissioner also. Requesting Supreme court return
property, cruise ships, space shuttle, submarine, aircraft, homes, money, land,
other property. And documents. All court transcript should be provided free with
a fee waiver request. And also request to be at trial or hearing to establish
paternity for the 2 children the default judgment was entered against me. A
reduction in amount due and verification of previous child trust in excess of 1
million to 100 million. Requesting a trial by jury. Asking for amount due[,]
documents.
Compi. at 1.
Such a complaint not only fails to meet the minimum requirements of Rule 8(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also appears to be based on fantastic and delusional
premises. Complaints describing fantastic or delusional scenarios are subject to immediate
dismissal as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d
328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
Including this one, the plaintiff has filed 17 complaints since February of2009, each of
which warranted immediate dismissal, either because it did not meet the minimum requirements
of Rule 8 or because it was frivolous. This pattern of filing results in an unwarranted
consumption of judicial resources. The plaintiff was warned previously that if he persisted in
filing frivolous or otherwise defective complaints, the Court could limit or deny his ability to
proceed without prepayment of fees. See Slip. op., Derian Douglas Hidman v. Derian Douglas
Hicman Archives et ai., Civil Action No. 10-12, at 2 (D.D.C. Jan. 6,2010). Accordingly, the
plaintiff will be required to show cause in writing why he should not be barred prospectively
from filing without prepayment of the filing fee.
A separate, related order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
U Ited States DIstnct Judge
-2-