William Starrett, Jr. v. US Department of Defense,, No. 18-11628 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-11628 Document: 00514901142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-11628 Summary Calendar FILED April 3, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk WILLIAM HENRY STARRETT, JR., Plaintiff–Appellant v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; UNITED STATES SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND; UNITED STATES ARMY; UNITED STATES ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND; UNITED STATES ARMY CIVIL AFFAIRS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS COMMAND; UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVE COMMAND; DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, L.L.C.; NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY ; ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS OF SANDIA, L.L.C.; TEXAS MILITARY DEPARTMENT; LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendants–Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18-CV-2851 Case: 18-11628 Document: 00514901142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2019 No. 18-11628 Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant William Henry Starrett, Jr. sued a wide variety of government agencies and private companies, alleging damages emerging from a claimed conspiracy to remotely harass and torture him. The district court dismissed Starrett’s suit with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Starrett appeals pro se. We have jurisdiction to review such dismissals, and we do so de novo. Westfall v. Luna, 903 F.3d 534, 542 (5th. Cir. 2018). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Courts may dismiss when the action on appeal fails to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). They may also dismiss claims that are “clearly baseless,” including “claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–328 (1989), see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (dismissal “is appropriate 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”). Starrett asks us to overturn the district court’s dismissal based on outlandish claims of near-constant surveillance, theft of intellectual property, and painful remote communication accomplished using nonexistent Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * 2 Case: 18-11628 Document: 00514901142 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2019 No. 18-11628 technology. These pleaded facts are facially implausible. Dismissal with prejudice was appropriate, the district court did not err, and we AFFIRM its judgment. 3
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.
