From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Golden v. Coleman

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Apr 19, 2011
429 F. App'x 73 (3d Cir. 2011)

Summary

finding factually frivolous allegations that "various prison employees at the State Correctional Institution in Fayette, Pennsylvania, where [the plaintiff] was formerly incarcerated, violated his constitutional rights by planting 'Government Micro Eye Cameras' in his food and broadcasting images obtained from those cameras on prison television"

Summary of this case from Price v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation

Opinion

No. 10-4171.

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 February 28, 2011.

Opinion filed: April 19, 2011.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 10-00248) District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson.

Jerome Golden, Somerset, PA, pro se.

Atty. Gen. PA, Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA, for Superintendent Coleman; Kitchen Supervisor John Doe # 4; Correctional Officer John Doe# 1; Correctional Officer John Doe# 2; Secretary Of Corrections, Jeffrey A. Beard, P.H.D.; Shirley Moore Smeal.

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges.


OPINION


Jerome Golden, a prisoner incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Somerset, Pennsylvania, appeals the District Court's dismissal of his complaint. For the following reasons, we will dismiss Golden's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Golden's complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that various prison employees at the State Correctional Institution in Fayette, Pennsylvania, where he was formerly incarcerated, violated his constitutional rights by planting "Government Micro Eye Cameras" in his food and broadcasting images obtained from those cameras on prison television. Golden believes that, once ingested, the cameras "attach[] to the visual cortex and then can be seen by someone on a computer," thus providing the defendants with a means of keeping tabs on him. The District Court dismissed Golden's complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, finding that Golden's "fantastic" and "delusional" allegations lacked a basis in fact.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Golden has been granted in forma pauperis status, we review this appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), § 1915(e)(2)(B) — formerly § 1915(d) — provides a court with "the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). "[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).

Having reviewed Golden's complaint, we conclude that his allegations are fantastic, delusional, and simply unbelievable. Id. at 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728 (a complaint may be dismissed as lacking a basis in fact if it is premised upon "allegations that are fanciful, 'fantastic,' and 'delusional[.]'") (citations omitted). Accordingly, we will dismiss Golden's appeal. Golden's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155-56 (3d Cir. 1993).


Summaries of

Golden v. Coleman

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Apr 19, 2011
429 F. App'x 73 (3d Cir. 2011)

finding factually frivolous allegations that "various prison employees at the State Correctional Institution in Fayette, Pennsylvania, where [the plaintiff] was formerly incarcerated, violated his constitutional rights by planting 'Government Micro Eye Cameras' in his food and broadcasting images obtained from those cameras on prison television"

Summary of this case from Price v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation

finding factually frivolous allegations that "various prison employees at the State Correctional Institution in Fayette, Pennsylvania, where [the plaintiff] was formerly incarcerated, violated his constitutional rights by planting 'Government Micro Eye Cameras' in his food and broadcasting images obtained from those cameras on prison television"

Summary of this case from Baynard v. Wetzel

dismissing as frivolous a prisoner's claim that prison employees planted "Government Micro Eye Cameras" in his food, which then attached to the "visual cortex" in his brain and sent images to a computer for broadcast on "prison television"

Summary of this case from Jones v. Stewart

dismissing complaint because the allegations were "fantastic, delusional, and simply unbelievable."

Summary of this case from Plourde v. Unknown Me. State Police Officer #1

dismissing complaint because the allegations were "fantastic, delusional, and simply unbelievable."

Summary of this case from Plourde v. United States

dismissing complaint because the allegations were "fantastic, delusional, and simply unbelievable."

Summary of this case from Plourde v. Unknown Me. State Police Officer #1

dismissing complaint because the allegations were "fantastic, delusional, and simply unbelievable."

Summary of this case from Plourde v. United States

dismissing as frivolous a prisoner's claim that prison employees implanted "Government Micro Eye Cameras" in his food, which then attached to the "visual cortex" in his brain and sent images to a computer for broadcast on "prison television"

Summary of this case from Hamilton v. McCune

dismissing as frivolous a prisoner's claim that prison employees implanted "Government Micro Eye Cameras" in his food, which then attached to the "visual cortex" in his brain and sent images to a computer for broadcast on "prison television"

Summary of this case from O'Laughlin v. Corrigan

dismissing case as factually frivolous when plaintiff alleged that the defendants "violated his constitutional rights by planting 'Government Micro Eye Cameras' in his food and broadcasting images obtained from those cameras on prison television"

Summary of this case from Santiago v. Phila. City
Case details for

Golden v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:Jerome GOLDEN, Appellant v. Superintendent COLEMAN; Kitchen Supervisor…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Apr 19, 2011

Citations

429 F. App'x 73 (3d Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Unknown Fed. Agents & the United States

A claim such as this must be dismissed sua sponte as delusional and frivolous. See Henry v. Caruso, No.…

Williams v. Unknown Fed. Agents

The same can and must be said for Williams's other allegation set forth on page 8, which is that unidentified…