* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 20 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BENJAMIN SPENCER GOSSETT, on behalf of “We The People of The United States of America,”

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 04-7057 (D.C. No. 04-CV-83-P) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , BALDOCK , and KELLY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Benjamin Spencer Gossett, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his class-action complaint, on beha lf of the people of the United States, against all elected and appointed officials and employees of the federal government. He alleged that defendants conspired t o commit acts of treason and domestic terrorism by failing to provide him with m edical treatment for the active hepatitis C and dormant tuberculosis he contracted while in the custody of the Alaska Department of Corrections. The basis of his suit was that defendants were aware of his conditions but nevertheless failed to protect the public from contagion. According to plaintiff, defendants viol ated the United States Constitution; the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107- 56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001); the Homeland Security Act, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002); the Geneva Convention; and the Helsinki Accords. The district court, sua sponte, determined that pla intiff’s claims were frivolous for three reasons: (1) plaintiff could n ot “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); (2) to the extent plaintiff was complaining about the denial of his s ocial security disability application, that issue must be pursued in a proper social security appeal, see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and (3) plaintiff’s allegations of constitutional violations were too conclusory to merit evaluation, see Dunn v. White , 880 F.2d 1188, 1197- 98 (10th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the district co urt dismissed the case under the-3-

authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), which in structs the court to dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time upon a determination that the action is frivolous. An action is frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if “the claim [is] based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or if it is founded on clearly baseless factual contentions.” Schlicher v. Thomas , 111 F.3d 777, 779 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted). “We review the district court’s dismissal based on frivolousness for abuse of discretion.” McWilliams v. Colorado , 121 F.3d 573, 574-75 (10th Cir. 1997). Like the district court, we construe pro se pleadings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Applying these standards, and after careful review of the record on appeal and plaintiff’s filings, we conclude the district c ourt did not abuse its discretion in entering the order of dismissal. Plaintiff’s mo tions relating to his case caption are DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge