UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ERIC FLORES, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-11359 

 Honorable David M. Lawson 

v. Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL 

and FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 

 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS [2] AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT [1] 

On April 14, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Eric Flores (“Flores”) filed a 63-page complaint in 

this Court. (Doc. #1). On April 23, 2015, this case was referred to the undersigned for 

management, hearing and determination of all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§636(b)(1)(A), and for any reports and recommendations on dispositive matters that may be 

necessary pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. #3). 

Upon consideration of the financial information provided, the Court will GRANT Flores’ 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. #2). For the reasons stated below, the Court 

will RECOMMEND that Flores’ complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). 

II. REPORT 

A. Background 

Flores’s complaint is entitled “Petition to Challenge the Constitutionality of the First 

Amendment.” (Doc. #1). From a review of Flores’ pleading – which, in large part, is rambling 

and incoherent – it appears that Flores is attempting to bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of 

himself and seventeen other “Mexican American citizens of the United states,” alleging that the 

2:15-cv-11359-DML-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 04/29/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 79
2 

United States Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are unlawfully 

interfering with religious practices, marriage, criminal investigations, and freedom of speech. 

(Id. at 2-4). Specifically, Flores claims that certain unspecified individuals have used “nuclear 

advanced technology with a direct signal to the satelite [sic] in outerspace [sic] that has the 

capability of calculateing [sic] a genetic code” in order to control and harm him, as well as 

numerous other Mexican-Americans, who are his friends, family members, or acquaintances. 

(Id. at 14, 19, 23). Flores seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and asks that the Court direct an 

investigation into these alleged violations. (Doc. #1-1 at 12-13). 

B. Certification of Class Action

As an initial matter, Flores’ request for class certification (Doc. #1 at 2) should be denied. 

Federal law prohibits pro se individuals from representing other litigants. See 28 U.S.C. §1654 

(“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally 

or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct 

causes therein.”) (emphasis added). Thus, like any litigant, while Flores may prosecute his 

claims pro se, he is limited to representing himself and may not act in a representative capacity 

for any other person. See Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 2007); see also 

Flores v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 2015 WL 1757523, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 17, 2015) (“Flores I”) 

(denying Flores’ request for class certification in a similar pro se action). 

C. The Merits of Flores’ Complaint

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis

complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action 

is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

319, 328 (1989). The term “frivolous” encompasses both “indisputably meritless” legal theories 

2:15-cv-11359-DML-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 04/29/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 80
3 

and “fantastic or delusional” factual allegations. Id. at 327-28. 

When reviewing a pro se complaint for frivolousness, the Court must hold it to less 

stringent standards than a complaint drafted by an attorney and must construe it liberally. See 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). However, the Court has broad discretion in 

determining whether a complaint is frivolous or malicious. See, e.g., Malone v. Colyer, 710 F.2d 

258, 260 (6th Cir. 1983). The Court is not required to accept the allegations set forth in the 

complaint as true, and may dismiss claims based upon factual allegations that are “irrational or 

wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). 

Applying these standards, the Court concludes that Flores’ complaint should be dismissed 

as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court notes 

that, within just the past few weeks, two other federal district courts have dismissed virtually 

identical complaints filed by Flores in those jurisdictions. See Flores I, 2015 WL 1757523, at 

*2-3; Flores v. U.S. Attorney Gen., et al., 2015 WL 1088782, at *2-3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2015) 

(“Flores II”). As the Flores II court noted, Flores’ “allegations border on factual frivolity 

because it appears wholly incredible that the Government Defendants would use satellite genetic 

coding to injure the plaintiff and his family members, much less an entire class of similarly 

situated Mexican-Americans.” Flores II, 2015 WL 1088782, at *3. That court took judicial 

notice of the fact that Flores has filed approximately 140 lawsuits virtually identical to this one in 

jurisdictions throughout the country, and indicated that “[s]wift dismissal is warranted to avoid 

further expenditure of judicial resources on a frivolous proceeding.” Id. (citing several other 

cases filed by Flores that were dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous pursuant 

to §1915(e)). This Court concurs and similarly finds that Flores’ instant complaint should be 

dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). 

2:15-cv-11359-DML-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 04/29/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 81
4 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that Flores’ application to proceed in 

forma pauperis (Doc. #2) is GRANTED. IT IS RECOMMENDED that Flores’ complaint 

(Doc. #1) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) as 

legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Flores should 

be warned that any further frivolous filings by him may result in the issuance an order restricting 

his ability to commence future civil actions in the Eastern District of Michigan. 

Dated: April 29, 2015 s/David R. Grand 

Ann Arbor, Michigan DAVID R. GRAND 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation and 

Order, any party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations and the order set forth above. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(1). Failure to timely file objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, (1985); United States v. Sullivan, 431 

F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). Only specific objections to this Report and Recommendation will 

be preserved for the Court’s appellate review; raising some objections but not others will not 

preserve all objections a party may have. See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 

F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596-97 (6th 

Cir. 2006). Copies of any objections must be served upon the Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Mich. 

LR 72.1(d)(2). 

A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with 

a copy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Any such response should be 

2:15-cv-11359-DML-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 04/29/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 82
5 

concise, and should address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue presented in the 

objections.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on April 29, 2015. 

 s/Eddrey O. Butts 

 EDDREY O. BUTTS 

 Case Manager 

2:15-cv-11359-DML-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 04/29/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 83