Alvandra Allen v. Bill Lee, No. 16-1250 (7th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted April 13, 2016 * Decided April 13, 2016 Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 16-1250 ALVANDRA J. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMMANUEL or BILL LEE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 15-cv-1566-PP Pamela Pepper, Judge. ORDER Alvandra Allen sued “Emmanuel or Bill Lee” for abusing him shortly after his birth in 1971 by, among other things, removing his pancreas, shooting him in the head (an episode in which he says he “died and came back to life”), and replacing his soul with an evil spirit. The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed it because it was frivolous and failed to state a claim. The defendant was not served with process in the district court and is not participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). * No. 16-1250 Page 2 Allen, the court ruled, did not allege any federal or constitutional violations and, to the extent he tried to allege any criminal charges, he lacked standing to do so. On appeal Allen states that his “legal argument” is “to gather everyone that was there, especially my doctor at birth,” in order to hold the defendant responsible for his “violent criminal acts.” Allen develops no reasoned basis for disturbing the district court’s ruling that his allegations are frivolous. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989) (district courts may dismiss suits describing “fantastic or delusional scenarios”). We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.