REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER1 The Clerk has forwarded for review a civil complaint filed by Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 1, Compl. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee but has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 2, which the Court has granted. Also pending is a request to supplement the Complaint, Dkt. No. 8, which in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants. I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT A. Governing Legal Standard 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, “(2)…the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that — …(B) the action…(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).2 Thus, even if a plaintiff meets the financial criteria to commence an action in forma pauperis, it is the court’s responsibility to determine whether the plaintiff may properly maintain the complaint that he filed in this District before the court may permit the plaintiff to proceed with this action in forma pauperis. See id. In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court has a duty to show liberality toward pro se litigants, see Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam), and should exercise “extreme caution…in ordering sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint before the adverse party has been served and both parties (but particularly the plaintiff) have had an opportunity to respond.” Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, a court should not dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff has stated “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although a court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged — but it has not show[n] — that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Thus, a pleading that only “tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” will not suffice. Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). II. DISCUSSION On June 29, 2015, Petitioner Peter Gakuba was convicted, pursuant a jury verdict in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Winnebago County, Illinois, of three counts of aggravated sexual abuse. He was sentenced to a total prison term of 12 years’ incarceration. His conviction was affirmed on appeal, People v. Gakuba, 2017 IL App (2d) 150744-U, and the Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, People v. Gakuba, No. 122289, 2017 WL 4386407 (Ill. Sept. 27, 2017). Gakuba v. Doe, 2022 WL 561669, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2022). This case is another in a series of cases litigated nationwide by Plaintiff seeking to, in some way, challenge that conviction. See, e.g., Gakuba v. D.C. Att’y Gen., 2023 WL 3274310, at *2 (D.D.C. May 1, 2023); Gakuba v. Hollywood Video, Inc., et al., 2015 WL 5737589 (D. Or. Sept. 30, 2015); Gakuba v. Hollywood Video, LLC., et al, 2015 WL 1537781 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015). Broadly stated, the Complaint alleges that law enforcement officials improperly obtained driver and video rental information about Plaintiff as part of the investigation into the alleged criminal conduct that gave rise to his conviction. See generally Compl. at
1-3. Much of the Complaint, however, contains legal arguments about the unjustness of his conviction and in support of his arguments that this information was improperly obtained, rather than factual allegations specifically outlining exactly what is alleged to have occurred and how the three named Defendants were involved. For the reasons set forth below, the Complaint should be dismissed. A. Personal Jurisdiction The Complaint asserts claims against the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorney General of Illinois. Comp. at
