Mahaney v. BrennerMahaney v. Brenner
Self-represented Plaintiff Alice R. Mahaney brings this civil action, complaining about state court prosecutions brought against her and seeking $500 million in damages. ECF No. 1. The matter is now before the Court upon the motion of Plaintiff for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or without prepayment of the required filing fees and costs. ECF No. 2. Having reviewed the motion and the financial information submitted in support, and given the procedural stance of the case described more fully below, the Court will grant the motion and waive the initial partial filing fee. See
Initial Partial Filing Fee
Pursuant to
According to her Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Plaintiff was confined at the St. Louis County Justice Center when she filed this action. ECF No. 2 at 1. Plaintiff states that she has no job, no income, and no money in her inmate account. Id. at 1-2. Taking this into consideration, and considering the procedural stance of the case, the Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee at this time. See
Legal Standard on Initial Review
Under
To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead more than “legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
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). While federal courts should not dismiss an action commenced in forma pauperis if the facts alleged are merely unlikely, the court can properly dismiss such an action as factually frivolous if the facts alleged are found to be “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327). Allegations are “clearly baseless” if they are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Id. (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327, 328). “As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Id. at 33.
The Complaint
Plaintiff‘s “Statement of Claim” in her own words is as follows:
[I]f you look up just the cases against me you will have an idea of what happened. [T]here is not enough space in this sheet to explain everything. However, given the right immediate relief you know that there is prema faci [sic] evidence to you know I can and will produce infinite amounts of documents to list each individual and every single action taken against me.
We can start with the Stl. Co. prosecutor Johanna Brennerman1[.] She was negligent in her prosecution[.] [I]t was absolutely her responsibility to understand the charges against me and the fact that it never actually applied to my situation and should have never picked up the case in the first place then she had a reckless disregard for the truth because I told her and her supervisor it did not apply[.] I was accused of tampering with a judicial officer but it was [illegible] lie in the first place. [I] truly believe it was purposeful manipulation & set up. [I] spent a year of my life in jail for something I never did and never even applied – lost almost everything I ever had in my entire life.
Id. at 5.
In addition, Plaintiff attached to her Complaint a document which begins: “Attention all officers of the Court.” ECF No. 1-3.2 She then provides a list of legal citations and states that she is making “a plea to this court for immediate substantial relief.” Id. at 1. She further explains:
I am at war with my government.
I have been a victim of their attacks on Me Myself and I … my physical living human woman body, my person and my cesti que vi estate trust.
From the very moment in time of my live birth. They are trying to claim that I am not really here, and I must be lost at sea.
They have held my Heritage hostage from me.
I AM THE QWEEN … QUI TAM.
My family name is HART!!!!!
My estate is worth trillions times infinity.
However, at this time, I am indigent, I am homeless, I do not even have one RED CENT to my name.
Id. at 2 (omissions in original).
Plaintiff goes on to allege that over the last ten years, government officials have “teamed together to commit heinous crimes and acts of treason against” her. She asserts that she has been injured but she provides no facts to support this allegation. In terms of legal violations, she claims that her “[c]onsumer rights,” “human rights,” “civil rights per the Bill of Rights,” and “all versions of due process … have been violated.” Id. She explains that since she has paid many attorneys for assistance and been unhappy with the results, she is now “a civil rights litigation Prosecuting paralegal working towards attorney.” Id. at 3. Furthermore, she alleges that because “the local authorities have racked up somewhere between 20 to 30 different lawsuits … [i]f [she does not] get this started ASAP, they are just going to continue violating [her] on a whole new level that could lead to [her] being literally assassinated.” Finally, she states that she “want[s] to be someone that is absolutely Lady Liberty and Lady Justice for All living souls” and that her “dream” is “that every single character will be defined as to exactly who and what that is, and who you are today!!!!!” Id.
Plaintiff‘s State Court Criminal Background
Plaintiff does not provide a case number for the matter in which St. Louis County assistant prosecutor Brenner allegedly charged her with tampering with a judicial official. Independent review of Plaintiff‘s criminal history on Missouri Case.net, the State of Missouri‘s online docketing system, does not reveal such a criminal conviction and none of the St. Louis County
As to defendant Sunset Hills, Plaintiff was issued a traffic citation for operating a vehicle without maintaining financial responsibility in December 2024. Sunset Hills v. Mahaney, No. 210751729 (21st Jud. Cir. filed Dec. 10, 2024). In February 2025, a warrant was issued for Plaintiff‘s failure to appear for a court hearing. The action appears to still be open.
As to defendant Fenton, Plaintiff was charged with prostitution by the City of Fenton in February of 2024. City of Fenton v. Mahaney, No. 24FENMU00017 (21st Jud. Cir. filed Feb. 16, 2024). After Plaintiff failed to appear for multiple court hearings in the matter, the Court issued a warrant, and she was arrested in October 2025. After being released on her own recognizance, Plaintiff again failed to appear for the April 2026 trial. Another warrant was issued on April 13, 2026, and Plaintiff was held on a $500 cash-only bond. Presumably, Plaintiff was being held at the St. Louis County Justice Center on this bond when she filed this action on April 16, 2026. ECF No. 1 at 6.
Discussion
The Court has carefully reviewed and liberally construed Plaintiff‘s Complaint and concludes that none of the allegations state a plausible claim for relief. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to formulate their pleadings in an organized and comprehensible manner, setting out their alleged claims and the facts supporting those claims as to each defendant in a simple, concise, and direct manner. See
The only defendant specifically named in the allegations of the Complaint is St. Louis County assistant prosecutor Johanna Brenner. To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to bring a claim of prosecutorial misconduct against Brenner, absolute immunity would bar such a claim. Absolute immunity protects prosecutors against claims arising from their initiation of a prosecution and presenting a criminal case, even when vindictive prosecution is alleged. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427-31 (1976) (prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims for damages when civil rights violations are alleged based on actions taken by prosecutor while initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution); Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1266 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Absolute immunity covers prosecutorial functions such as the initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution, the presentation of the state‘s case at trial, and other conduct that is intimately associated with the judicial process“); Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1446 (8th Cir. 1987) (prosecutorial immunity extends even to allegations of vindictive prosecution) (abrogated on other grounds).
As for the other defendants, the Court is unable to ascertain Plaintiff‘s claims against these defendants. Plaintiff includes no facts which would plausibly notify defendants of the claims against them. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that the essential function of a complaint “is to give the opposing party fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim.“). Although the Court is required to liberally construe Plaintiff‘s pro se Complaint, the Court will not supply facts or construct claims. See Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15 (refusing to supply additional facts or to construct a legal theory for a self-represented plaintiff).
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss this action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff‘s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. Pursuant to
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the Complaint as to any defendant because the Complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff‘s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. See
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff‘s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 3] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
CRISTIAN M. STEVENS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE