United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Bronina Ruslana Olegovna, filed this pro se lawsuit, alleging
that defendants colluded in a scheme to defraud the Ukrainian
people of billions of dollars and launder the profits. Docket
1. Olegovna also moves for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Docket 2. For the reasons below, the Court grants
Olegovna's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismisses her complaint.
complaint alleges a complex scheme of fraud and money
laundering in which money is taken from the Ukrainian
national budget and funneled, via international banks and
corporations, to numerous people and organizations, including
defendants. Docket 1. The majority of the complaint concerns
actions allegedly taken by Russian and Ukrainian political
leaders. Id. Olegovna filed similar (if not
identical) complaints in two federal courts in New York.
See Olegovna v. Putin, 16-CV-586 (KAM),
2016 WL 3093893 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 2016); Olegovna v. VTB
Capital et al, 16-CV-01705 (LAP). Both of these
complaints were dismissed before service.
court must accept the well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the non-moving party. Schriener v. Quicken Loans,
Inc., 774 F.3d 442, 444 (8th Cir. 2014). Civil rights
and pro se complaints must be liberally construed.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007);
Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835, 839 (8th
Cir. 2004). Even with this construction, "a pro se
complaint must contain specific facts supporting its
conclusions." Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334,
1337 (8th Cir. 1985). Civil rights complaints cannot be
merely conclusory. Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152
(8th Cir. 1993); Parker v. Porter, 221 F.App'x
481, 482 (8th Cir. 2007).
complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations .
. . [but] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "If a plaintiff cannot make the
requisite showing, dismissal is appropriate."
Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657, 663 (8th Cir.
Motion For Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
federal court may authorize the commencement of suit without
prepayment of fees when an applicant files an affidavit
stating she is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Determining whether an applicant is
sufficiently impoverished to qualify to proceed in forma
pauperis under § 1915 is committed to the court's
discretion. Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d
1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983). "In forma pauperis status
does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute
destitution." Lee v. McDonald's Corp., 231
F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000).
Court finds that Olegovna has sufficiently demonstrated her
need to proceed in forma pauperis. She reports that she has
no income and is supported by the minimal financial
assistance from her parents. Docket 2 at 1. Therefore, the
Court grants her motion for leave to proceed in forma
litigant proceeds in forma pauperis, a Court must dismiss her
case if it determines that that action "fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted . . . ." 28
U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). Olegovna's
complaint fails to state a claim because she lacks standing
to bring her claims before the Court.
Article III standing to exist, a plaintiff must have suffered
an injury-in-fact as an essential element of standing.
Injury-in-fact in the context of standing means an actual or
imminent invasion of a concrete and particularized legally
protected interest. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). "To establish standing,
plaintiffs 'must allege personal injury fairly traceable
to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely
to be redressed by the requested relief.' "