Cowboys fan sues NFL for $88 billion over reversed call
Terry Hendrix, evidently a passionate Dallas Cowboys fan, is seeking $88,987,654,321.88 from the NFL in the wake of the controversial replay reversal in the Cowboys' NFC divisional round loss to the Green Bay Packers.
He names NFL Vice President of Officiating Dean Blandino, referee Gene Steratore and Commissioner Roger Goodell by name.
WTFery continues at http://www.wfaa.com/story/sports/nfl/cowboys/2015/01/22/cowboys-fan-seeks-88-billion-from-nfl-for-overturned-call/22193783/
I didn't know madinmaryland was serving time in Colorado!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Has he ever plead insanity, by any chance?
rocktivity
Asking because I'm not sure if it is a well-known phrase from the local AZ Lerner & Rowe commercial a "man who represents himself has a fool for a client. Call Lerner & Rowe."
Also asking because it appears he is doing this on his own behalf. I couldn't see a paid attorney taking this up unless the man in prison was paying him unless the attorney felt like throwing away his own time & money. It also isn't the first time this inmate has done this.
TERRY C. HENDRIX, a/k/a Terrance C. Hendrix, Plaintiff, v. BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, Defendant.
SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.
1. Introduction. Plaintiff Terry C. Hendrix ("plaintiff"
, an inmate at the Kit Carson Correctional Center, Burlington, Colorado, proceeds prose and has been granted in forma pauperis status. He filed this complaint alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933. (D.I. 3)
2. Standard of Review. A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) if "the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions). The court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because plaintiff proceeds prose, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations omitted).
3. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual scenario. Neitzke, 490 at 327-28; Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989); see, e.g., Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding frivolous a suit alleging that prison officials took an inmate's pen and refused to give it bac).
<snip>
6. Discussion. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Barclays Bank of Delaware ("Barclays" violated the Securities Act of 1933 when it "invested in, facilitated, accepted, bought or sold, held in possession, tendered, built, [and] constructed mortgage backed securities." (D.I. 3) The complaint contains conclusory language, does not indicate when or where the alleged wrongful acts occurred, and contemplates million and billion dollar fines. Plaintiff "offers" to settle the matter out of court pursuant to "federal law executive order #12778." (Id.)
http://leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020141124923/HENDRIX%20v.%20BARCLAYS%20BANK%20DELAWARE
I like how he doesn't cite official rulebook or none of that but opts for "autobahn" for DeMarco Murray. 
