Opinion
Civil Action No. 11 1518
08-18-2011
BRUD ROSSMANN, Plaintiff, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous.
Plaintiff, a former federal employee and applicant to the Witness Protection Program, alleges that methamphetamine was trafficked by and through the Departments of Defense and Justice, and that the drug was administered to him without his consent in the course of a medical research project. Among other relief, plaintiff demands damages of $100 million and injunctive relief to halt this medical research.
The Court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has the authority to dismiss not only claims based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of cases whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 328. The Court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Mindful that a complaint filed by a pro se litigant is held to a less stringent standard than that applied to a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court concludes that the factual contentions of the plaintiff's complaint are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
________________________________
United States District Judge