United States District Court, D. Nebraska
BRUD "ANTI ANTI CHRIST" 1 ROSSMANN, Esquire, Otherwise pleading as the "Anti Anti Christ"; Plaintiff,
JAMIE DIMON, CEO, Chair JP Morgan Chase; WARREN BUFFETT, CEO, Chair Berkshire Hathaway; RYAN SCHNEIDER, Realogy; DONALD TRUMP, The President of the United States, The White House; IVANKA TRUMP, One of Trump's Closest Advisers, The White House; ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, JOHN DOE-1, JOHN DOE-2, and JOHN DOE-3, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Brud Rossmann's
(“Rossmann”) motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(filing no. 2) and his pro se civil complaint
(filing no. 1). For the reasons stated below,
Rossman's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (filing
no. 2) is denied and this action is dismissed with
January 4, 2018, Rossmann, a non-prisoner pro se litigant who
represents that he graduated from Harvard Law School and was
a federal prosecutor, filed a complaint against Jamie Dimon,
CEO of JP Morgan Chase; Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire
Hathaway; Ryan Schneider; President Donald Trump; Ivanka
Trump; Anthony Scaramucci; and three unidentified John Does.
Rossmann refers to himself as the “Anti Anti Christ,
” a name he alleges “the Jew, Jay Rappaport, then
President of America Online, ” coined for Rossmann.
(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p.1.) The court now conducts
an initial review of the Complaint to determine whether
summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §
court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must dismiss
a complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or
malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to
“nudge their claims across the line from conceivable
to plausible, ” or “their complaint must be
dismissed.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).
most, the court only can decipher certain themes contained
within the generally rambling and incomprehensible
allegations of Rossmann's Complaint. Specifically, the
Complaint espouses Rossmann's professed intellectual
capabilities, educational background, and work experience;
his history of filing numerous actions in federal
court and claims with federal agencies; his
belief that he has been the target of torture, attempted
murder, financial ruin, “infrasonic weaponry platforms,
” and other abuse by defendants; and his hatred for
“the human scum defining the Defendants, . . . the
Court, the reviewing Judge in this instance, . . . [and] each
and every one of you.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF
pp.5-7, 21.) In his prayer for relief, Rossmann
seeks $10, 000, 000.00 in compensatory damages and
“[i]njunctive relief . . . to include the joy, the
privilege, of K9ooling certain natural persons with a Kn9ffe,
[and] gut999ting them in public.” (Id. at CM/ECF
has not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 which
requires that every complaint contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief” and that “each allegation . .
. be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2), (d)(1). Moreover, the Complaint's allegations
are entirely baseless. See Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-34 (1992) (court may dismiss
complaint of plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis as
frivolous, and disregard clearly baseless, fanciful,
fantastic, or delusional factual allegations); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (a complaint is
frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or
in fact). Accordingly, the court will dismiss this action as
frivolous and with prejudice as the defects in the Complaint
cannot be remedied through more specific pleading.
See28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Plaintiff's Complaint (filing no. 1) is
dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(filing no. 2) is denied.
court will enter judgment by a separate document.
 A search of PACER indicates that
Rossmann has filed at least 100 civil actions in federal
district courts ...