Michael R. Atraqchi, et al v. USA, et al, No. 21-11526 (11th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 21-11526 Date Filed: 10/15/2021 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11526 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MICHAEL R. ATRAQCHI, IRENE S. ATRAQCHI, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BARACK OBAMA, MICHELLE OBAMA, SHIRLEY SVENSON, MUMTAZ FARGO, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 21-11526 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2021 Page: 2 of 4 Opinion of the Court 21-11526 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-00956-MSS-JSS ____________________ Before NEWSOM, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Pro se plaintiffs Michael and Irene Atraqchi appeal the sua sponte dismissal of their 18 U.S.C. § 2520 in forma pauperis complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the United States of America, Barack and Michelle Obama, Wells Fargo Bank, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill and Hillary Clinton, First United Methodist Church, and hundreds of other defendants. The Atraqchis argue that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing their action as frivolous when, according to them, there is an arguable basis in both law and fact that defendants have formed a “Death Cult” for the purpose of “impos[ing] religious inquisition upon them.” District courts have discretion to dismiss frivolous in forma pauperis complaints at any stage of the proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint is “frivolous” when it appears that the plaintiff “has little or no chance of success.” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). A district court may conclude that the plaintiff has little or no chance of USCA11 Case: 21-11526 21-11526 Date Filed: 10/15/2021 Page: 3 of 4 Opinion of the Court 3 success where the allegations are “clearly baseless,” “fanciful,” “fantastic,” “delusional,” or without “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31, 32–33 (1992). We review such determinations for abuse of discretion. Id. at 33. In their complaint, the Atraqchis assert that the defendants have— illegally wiretapp[ed] their telephone and [conducted] electronical surveillances of their Hotels room in the State of Florida, Tampa area, on the train, buses, restaurants, stores, on the streets, hospitals and doctors’ offices, and elsewhere and even from the White House, for the purpose of isolating and criminating the Plaintiffs and impose religious inquisition upon them, homosexualize, rape, blackmail, and procure them into a field of interception of illegal wire communications where they will be forced to commit crime against humanity, . . . and convert them to Baptist and/or Methodist sect of Christianity from being Muslims, other religions and Christian denominations in violation of the law and U.S. Constitution. On appeal, they assert that “an individual by the name of Dylann Roof prevented [the Atraqchis’ murder by the death cult] and saved the Atraqchis lives by executing the nine co-conspirators at the basement of the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC.” They also accuse the defendants of “[r]aping [their] daughters and prostituting them and forcing them to blame their [p]arents for the crime.” USCA11 Case: 21-11526 4 Date Filed: 10/15/2021 Opinion of the Court Page: 4 of 4 21-11526 Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the in forma pauperis actions as “frivolous” under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Atraqchis’ allegations were clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, or lacking any arguable basis in either law or fact. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 31–33. The Atraqchis therefore had little or no chance of success. As such, it was within the district court’s discretion to dismiss the complaint and to deny the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction sua sponte. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED.
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.
