Opinion
Civil Action No. 14-1177
07-18-2014
FREDERICK BANKS, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.
According to plaintiff, he unlawfully confined at a state facility in Ohio; he demands his immediate release from custody. See Compl. ¶ 1. Insofar as the pleading can be construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this district is not the appropriate place for its adjudication. The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is the plaintiffs warden. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick. 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The Court cannot entertain this petition for a writ of habeas corpus because neither the petitioner nor his custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction. See Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm'n 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff remaining claims, particularly those alleging the improper use of "subaural communications and frequencies and bio-electric sensors," Compl. ¶ 1, and the Central Intelligence Agency's use of "voice to skull electronic harassment technology," id. ¶ 2, will be dismissed as frivolous and duplicative of matters addressed and rejected in prior litigation. See Banks v. Director, Office of Science and Technology, Behavioral Modification Unit, No. 1:14-CV-005, 2014 WL 271650, at *4-5 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2014); Banks v. Central Intelligence Agency, No. 1:13-CV-2664, 2013 WL 6328277, at *4-6 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2013).
An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
__________
United States District Judge