Opinion
No. 3-04-CV-0410-G.
April 14, 2004
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are as follow:
I.
This is an unspecified civil action brought by Plaintiff Darrell S. Johnson against the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA"). On February 26, 2004, plaintiff tendered a one-page complaint to the district clerk and filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the information provided by plaintiff in his pauper's affidavit indicates that he lacks the funds necessary to prosecute this case, the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. Written interrogatories were then sent to plaintiff in order to obtain additional information about the factual basis of this suit. See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff filed his interrogatory answers with the district clerk on April 8, 2004. The court now determines that this case is frivolous and should be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
II.
Plaintiff accuses the DEA of implanting a radio transmitter beneath his scalp and forcing him to ingest various chemicals and sleep-inducing drugs "to isolate me from fellow members of my race so that I would be forced into a relationship outside my race." ( Spears Quest. #1(f)). As a result of these invasive measures, plaintiff has been alienated from his family, forced into poverty, and subjected to public ridicule. Plaintiff further alleges that he has been "aggressively sought after for purposes of sexual reasons by many famous individuals who are now holding and once held elected positions." (Plf. Compl. at 1). By this suit, plaintiff seeks damages totaling $1 million per day and equitable relief.A.
A district court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes that the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Henson-El v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2863 (1991). A complaint is without an arguable basis in law if it is grounded upon an untenable or discredited legal theory. Neitzke, 109 S.Ct. at 1831. A claim is factually frivolous when "the facts alleged are fantastic or delusional scenarios or the legal theory upon which the complaint relies is indisputably meritless." Harris v. Hegman, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).B.
Plaintiff does not present a logical set of facts to support any claim for relief. Instead, his complaint recites fantastic charges which are clearly fanciful and delusional in nature. Dismissal is clearly warranted under these circumstances. See, e.g. Daniel v. FBI, 2003 WL 21436479 at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jun. 17, 2003) (dismissing complaint alleging that FBI stalked, harassed, and tried to poison plaintiff because she ran as a write-in candidate for President of the United States); Decker v. Fleming, 2002 WL 31538766 at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2002) (dismissing complaint alleging that federal prison officials opened-up plaintiffs mind "where they could listen to my thinking in Psychology Dept.").
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).