Opinion
Civil Action No. 13 0064
01-16-2013
Frank Brett, Plaintiff, v. Judge Reggie Walton et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Plaintiff is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suing U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton of this Court and a list of other defendants. Plaintiff states that on December 18, 2012, "all the logistics and civil rights harassment have been coming from Federal Judge Reggie Walton of Washington DC. I would see attorneys Andrea Carter [a named defendant] and 2 other attorneys follow me into the Washington DC Federal Courthouse. I have the logistics as evidence." Compl. at 2. The remainder of the 19-page complaint is simply incomprehensible.
The complaint presents the very type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal of the case under § 1915(e) as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, complaints, such as this one, that lack "an arguable basis in law and fact" are, too, subject to dismissal as frivolous. Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984); see Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints reciting bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts, or postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind."). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
______________________
United States District Judge