Bahrampour v. Secretary of Air Force, No. 19-1254 (10th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ AFSHIN BAHRAMPOUR, February 21, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF AIR FORCE; OFFICE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTIONS, Department of Health and Human Services; DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY, D.A.R.P.A.; 50TH SPACE WING PUBLIC AFFAIRS; DIGITAL RECEIVER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; UNITED NATIONS OUTER ORBITAL SPACE AGENCY, U.N.O.O.S.A.; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS; RAY KURZWELL, Singularity University; SINGULARITY UNIVERSITY, NASA campus; PATRICK SHANAHAN, Secretary of Defense; DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION; U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE FOR ARMED SERVICES; WILLIAM BARR, U.S. Attorney General; SONNY PURDUE, Secretary of Agriculture; STEVE SISOLAK, Nevada Governor; AARON D. FORD, Nevada Attorney General; JOINT FORCES HEADQUARTERS, Defense Information Systems Agency; ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; No. 19-1254 (D.C. No. 1:19-CV-01362-LTB-GPG) (D. Colo.) CHAIR OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; CHAIR OF THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION; SKUNKWORKS; ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND LOW−INTENSITY CONFLICT; SPECIAL OPERATIONS POLICY AND OVERSIGHT COUNCIL; SECRETARY OF COMMERCE; SECRETARY OF LABOR; SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; BEN CARSON, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION; SECRETARY OF ENERGY; SECRETARY OF EDUCATION; SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING; DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE; ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ADMINISTRATOR OF THE AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * * Oral argument would not materially help us to decide this appeal, so we have thus decided the appeal based on the appellate briefs and the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 2 _________________________________ Before MATHESON, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ In this suit, Mr. Afshin Bahrampour sued many federal agencies and federal officers, alleging that they have secretly experimented on him with radiation through electromagnetic spectrum weapons. The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous. Mr. Bahrampour appeals and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dismiss the appeal and deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court had to screen the complaint for frivolousness because Mr. Bahrampour is a prisoner suing government officials and was proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A suit is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The claim is wholly incredible, so the district court correctly dismissed the suit as frivolous. See McGinnis v. Freudenthal, 426 F. App’x 625, 628 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (“[The] claims of electromagnetic torture are delusional and unsupported by any factual basis.”); see also Clark v. United States, 74 F. App’x 561 (6th Cir. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 3 2003) (unpublished) (upholding dismissal, based on frivolousness, of a claim involving radiation experiments). The appeal is also frivolous. On appeal, Mr. Bahrampour states that he is incorporating excerpts from an article. 1 Mr. Bahrampour contends that this article shows that the military is routinely conducting “‘freedom of thought’ violations against the plaintiff as is routine practice.” Appellant’s Memorandum in Support of Opening Br. at 3. But the article does not provide any basis to believe that federal authorities are conducting radiation experiments on Mr. Bahrampour. Mr. Bahrampour also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the appeal is frivolous, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Entered for the Court Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge The article was not part of the district court or the appellate record , but Mr. Bahrampour also moves for judicial notice of the article. We grant the request for judicial notice, recognizing that Mr. Bahrampour is pro se and apparently believes that he is being targeted for radiation experiments. 1 4
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.
