IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
April 17, 2013
KETCHMARK, TRUMAN LEE, HIS HEIRS AND ASSIGNS, PER SE, IN FORMA PAUPERIS
OBAMA, BARACK, ET AL. PR U.S.A. ($2 TRILLION BUDGET); KIRK CALDWELL, ET AL. MAYOR ($10 BILLION BUDGET); BILLY KENOI, ET AL. MAYOR ($365 MILLION BUDGET), DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Oki Mollway Chief United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO FILE COMPLAINT LODGED APRIL 15, 2013, PURSUANT TO PREFILING REVIEW ORDER OF FEBRUARY 24, 2011, IN CIVIL NO. 10-00725 DAE/LEK
On February 24, 2011, District Judge David Alan Ezra issued a prefiling review order regarding any proposed Complaint that might be submitted by Truman Lee Ketchmark. On April 15, 2013, Ketchmark submitted a document that includes the words "Brief--Statement--Bill--Complaint for Damages." This document names as Defendants the President of the United States, the Mayor of the City and County of Honolulu, and the Mayor of the County of Hawaii. The document refers to a lava flow that "hit my mango and property pins," and to "false arrests, tickets, kidnapping, hostage holding, ransoming and acquittals." It also includes correspondence relating to a condominium association. The court cannot discern what any Defendant's actual alleged wrongdoing is or why any Defendant is named. Nor can the court determine when alleged actions occurred or whether this court even has jurisdiction. The "Complaint" fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted.
Pursuant to Judge Ezra's prefiling order, the court determines that the "Complaint" of April 15, 2013, does not merit further review and will not be litigated. The Clerk of Court is ordered to retain Ketchmark's "Complaint" in the court's files as Misc. No. 13-00063 SOM/RLP. If Ketchmark is able to file a non-frivolous pleading that states claims upon which relief can be granted, he may submit that Complaint to this court pursuant to the prefiling review order.
To the extent Ketchmark desires to appeal any previous order, he shall file an appropriate document in the case being appealed.
To the extent Ketchmark may be asking the court to lift the prefiling order, he has failed to provide the court with any argument supporting such a request. The court declines to lift the prefiling order under the present circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Susan Oki Mollway
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.