Davis v. Utah Department of Corrections, No. 2:2015cv00269 - Document 15 (D. Utah 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND DISMISSAL ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Section 1983 complaint is DISMISSED under Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A because his claims are either frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 id. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 5/22/17. (dla)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davis v. Utah Department of Corrections Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH STEVEN DALE DAVIS, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER v. UTAH DEP’T OF CORRS. et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:15-CV-269-DAK District Judge Dale A. Kimball Plaintiff, Steven Dale Davis, has filed with the Court a prisoner pro se civil rights complaint. See 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2017). The Court approved Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 id. § 1915. The Complaint's allegations are leveled at Defendant Utah Department of Corrections (UDOC). To summarize, Plaintiff accuses Defendant of gassing him as he entered prison in 2004. He further asserts that there is a “coup within the Department of Correction,” in which “they are trying for full takeover, and using me as their tool to do so.” The Court has screened Plaintiff's Complaint under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A and now dismisses it for being frivolous and failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See id. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A. Section 1915 grants this Court the power to "'pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations.'" Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). Although Plaintiff's allegations must be viewed in his favor, "a court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous . . . if the facts alleged are 'clearly baseless,' a category Dockets.Justia.com encompassing allegations that are 'fanciful,' 'fantastic,' and 'delusional.'" Id. at 32-33 (citations omitted). Accordingly, a determination of factual frivolousness is proper "when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Id. at 33. Plaintiff's assertions here fit these definitions of factual frivolousness. The fantastic claims in Plaintiff's complaint about being gassed and used as a pawn in a coup involving UDOC have a delusional quality and are patently unbelievable. The claims here must therefore be dismissed as factually frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2017). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's § 1983 complaint is DISMISSED under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A because his claims are either frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 id. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A. This case is CLOSED. DATED this 22nd day of May, 2017. BY THE COURT: DALE A. KIMBALL 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.
