BELL v. BEELER, No. 1:2009cv01857 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 9/24/09. (md, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED SEP 2 9 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE OF 'OLUMBIA NANCYM ~ ~ W ~R T ~ N ~ T O N , E T CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT LLOYD BELL, Plaintiff, v. 1 Civil Action No. 09 185'7 A.F. BEELER, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted, but the complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant, the Warden of the Federal Medial Center in Butner, North Carolina, has engaged in a criminal conspiracy. According to plaintiff, defendant "knows the vegetables have a crack line H.C.I. [Head Cavity Insensitive] poison drug in them," Compl. at 3 (brackets in original), yet defendant allows such food to be served at the facility, see id. at 2-3. Plaintiff alleges that he has consumed such contaminated food and that his "nose was spread wider than usual," that his "eyelids were swollen," and that he "noticed crack lines in [his] face and eyelids as a result of the dineing [sic] room food." Id. at 2. He demands "restitutional punishment money for the crimes exposed in this complaint" of $1 million. Id. The court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(l). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 3 19 (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 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). The court is mindful that complaints filed bypro 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. gic,3 H ~ i c nited States District Judge
]]>
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.
