Opinion
4:23-cv-04183-SLD-JEH
01-08-2024
JOHN LAMAR FILLMER, Plaintiff, v. CLAIMS UNIT DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, CAO RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION, MANATEE COUNTY, MANATEE COUNTY, COUNTY OF MANATEE, MANATEE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, and MANATEE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, Defendants.[1]
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
SARA DARROW CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff John Lamar Fillmer filed suit against FCR Claims Unit Division of Risk Management, Florida (DOFS), alleging that he was “being stalked harrassed [sic] and monitored under unlawful surveillance violating [his] 4th amendement [sic]” rights. Compl. 1, ECF No. 1. The Court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim but granted him leave to file an amended complaint. Nov. 16, 2023 Order 3-4, ECF No. 6. Fillmer filed an amended complaint on December 1, 2023. See Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 7. He alleges that while in a state hospital, he “heard voices from odd people” who told him “that they were the sheriffs and government” of Manatee, Florida. Id. at 4. He claims that these voices told him that he had to “sell [his] soul to them,” that they “run” Manatee and Sarasota County, and not to tell the police or they would kill him and his family. Id. Fillmer refers to this as “neural monitoring,” unlawful surveillance, and electronic harassment and claims that it “is a constant ongoing problem that still causes [him] mental unrest and physical and emotional problems.” See id. at 4-5.
The court must dismiss an action brought by an individual proceeding in forma pauperis if it determines the action “is frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) allows courts “to pierce the veil of [a] complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). “A claim is factually frivolous if its allegations are bizarre, irrational or incredible.” Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 829 (7th Cir. 2007); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328 (noting that a court can dismiss complaints that describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios”).
Nietzke refers to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is section 1915(d)'s “materially identical successor.” Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002).
Fillmer's action is factually frivolous. The gist of Fillmer's complaint is that he has been subjected to surveillance and harassment by government agents appearing as voices in his head. These allegations are bizarre, irrational, and incredible. See Ash v. Superior Police Dep't, Nos. 22-cv-512-jdp, 22-cv-659-jdp, 2022 WL 17403117, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 2, 2022) (“Ash's allegations that she is being attacked by radiation, surveilled by military drones, followed everywhere, and has voices forcefully broadcast to her are irrational and implausible, so they do not state claims for relief.”); cf. LaVeau v. Snyder, 84 Fed.Appx. 654, 656 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[The plaintiff's] allegations of a surveillance device that can read minds and manipulate thoughts are fantastic and delusional ....”).
Accordingly, Fillmer's action is DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as it is frivolous. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case.