WEBB v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, No. 1:2012cv00923 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Richard W. Roberts on 5/31/2012. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
----- ------- --- -------- --- ---- FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL ANTHONY WEBB, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. JUN- 7 2012 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia 12 0923 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on review of the plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff allegedly has been "subjected to Conspiritorial [sic] Racial Hatred Activity," Com pl. at 1, at the hands of Central Intelligence Agency and Sony Pictures Entertainment personnel, see id. at 2. Among other actions, unidentified individuals have tried "to kill him ... by injecting him with deadly viruses;" they have "suffocate[ed] him to install mini bugs inside him;" and they have used "satellites to laser him, and to shock him, and also to static charge him." !d. For these and other injuries, plaintiff"urgently demand[s] Emergency Relief by any means necessary, to prevent him from being subjected to the above described conspiratorial racial hatred activity." !d. at 4. 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)(l )(B), 1915A(b)(1). In Neitzke v. 1 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). 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 the plaintiff's complaint, the Court concludes that what factual contentions are identifiable are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(l)(B). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: s I-> (I{~ United States District Judge 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.
