MCBRIEN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al, No. 1:2009cv00197 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 1/29/09. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED FEB" 3 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KAREN McBRIEN, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et at., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. NANCY MAYER WHITIINGTON. Cl.EHK u.s. DISTRICT COlIIr 09 0197 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. 1 The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. 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. ยง 1915(E)(I)(B). 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. !d. at 328. The trial 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). Plaintiff has submitted two pleadings which appear to be duplicates. For purposes ofthis Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court consolidates the two pleadings. 1 Plaintiff alleges that various federal government agencies and contractors are conducting surveillance on her in her home and as she travels, that other entities have conducted biomedical and genetic experiments on her, and that other unidentified individuals are conspiring to harass her and to deprive her of any assistance with her troubles. Plaintiff demands monetary damages and injunctive relief. The court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 (1972). Having reviewed plaintiffs complaint, it appears that its factual contentions are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. 2
]]>
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.
