No Second Amendment “Right to Build Solar-Powered Greenhouses”

So Judge Joshua Wolson (E.D. Pa.) held yesterday in Nellom v. Shapiro, unsurprisingly. An excerpt, from the Factual Allegations section:

Congress passed the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act” in 2021, which resulted in the “Justice40 Initiative mission of Sustainability of our nation via renewable. The Department of Energy then created the National Community Solar Partnership (NCSP) to “advise on placing in low income communities.”

Mr. Nellom mentions a “National Renewable Energy Laboratory $8.2 million prize money $400k to the winners via HeroX online platform.” He asserts that the “essence of the proposed project, to develop greenhouse with solar installations as a way of creating power generating and job producing community hubs encouraging food sovereignty and economic health is a great idea.” The project would apparently build 4,800 square foot greenhouses with solar panel roof systems to produce renewable food, energy, water production, and job effects.

He claims that “children have a fundamental right to benefit from learning to create a sustainable renewable future as a nation.” He claims a Second Amendment right of self-defense that “include[s] a fundamental right to grow food to survive, right to bear arms is based upon.” As relief, Mr. Nellom seeks to have the Governors of Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico “file an answer showing awareness of this opportunity to advance youth toward the more perfect union we are all entitled found in a nation learning to grow together comfortably in Greenhouses.”

The judge rejects the claims, and adds:

Over the past 25 years, Mr. Nellom has filed 24 civil cases in this Court, none of which proceeded beyond the pleading stage of the litigation, including 12 such cases in the past five years. This Complaint, which presents generalized grievances and frivolous claims without payment of the filing fee gives me reason to believe that, without an injunction, he will continue to file cases that lack serious merit with no economic consequence to himself, thereby wasting scarce judicial resources.

Thus, I will enter an Order that directs Mr. Nellom to show cause why I should not limit his ability to file future lawsuits pro se in this Court without paying the filing fee should not be enjoined unless he includes with his complaint and in forma pauperis application a certification that a licensed attorney has signed, indicating that the claims he seeks to present have arguable merit. The claim must include the attorney’s bar number and contact information. The anticipated injunction would require the Clerk of Court to return to Mr. Nellom any new case submissions that fail to comply, without docketing them.