From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

JOHNSON v. CHAU

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Oct 5, 2009
Civil Action No. 09 1935 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 09 1935.

October 5, 2009


MEMORANDUM OPINION


The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff, who identifies himself as the "Executive Director of the Watergate Anti-Crime Commission," Compl. at 6, filed this complaint entitled a "Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Corpus," against four individual defendants and the District of Columbia, id. at 1, alleging that three of the defendants told lies, id. at 3, 5. The complaint alleges that defendant Chau not only told lies, but also broke into his mailbox, added her own money to a check and mailed it, stole a check that belonged to plaintiff and cashed it, id. at 3, 4, and while plaintiff was away, let a worker from Green Door search plaintiff's room to look for "political evidence of anti-Marxism, the very same material that had already been so boldly destroyed, stolen, or merely taken out." Id. at 5. The complaint does not identify any harm traceable to the fourth named individual defendant or the District of Columbia. For relief, the complaint asks the court to "compel the Defendants to honor the laws that they are now violating, and that a fine be ordered for the violations and that the amount of the fine be set by this most Honorable Court." Id. at 6.

The court takes judicial notice that Green Door is a non-profit "community program that prepares women and men with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses to work and live independently in the District of Columbia." See http://www.greendoor.org.

Considered as a whole, the complaint presents the sort of "fantastic or delusional scenarios" that warrant dismissal of an action as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (requiring dismissal of frivolous complaints that are filed by plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis).

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.


Summaries of

JOHNSON v. CHAU

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Oct 5, 2009
Civil Action No. 09 1935 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2009)
Case details for

JOHNSON v. CHAU

Case Details

Full title:John W. Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Maggie Chau, et al. Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Oct 5, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 09 1935 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2009)