PATEL v. UNITED STATES et al, No. 1:2021cv02263 - Document 7 (D.D.C. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 09/08/2021. (znmg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
PATEL v. UNITED STATES et al Doc. 7 Case 1:21-cv-02263-UNA Document 7 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RAJ K. PATEL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED SEPT. 8, 2021 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 21-2263 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and “Motion to Receive Notice of Filing by Email.”1 Under the statute governing in forma pauperis proceedings, the Court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that its factual allegations, including assertions that defendants have taken his “intellectual property [and] word patterns, through means and methods of advanced weaponry . . . [under] the control of the United States, . . . the F.B.I. and/or C.I.A.,” Compl. at 2-3 (emphasis removed), largely are incoherent, irrational or wholly incredible. As such, the complaint is subject to dismissal as frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged The original complaint (ECF No. 1) and application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) did not bear plaintiff’s signature as is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Pursuant to the Court’s August 27, 2021, Order (ECF No. 4), plaintiff submitted signed copies of these documents (ECF Nos. 5-6). 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-02263-UNA Document 7 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2 rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]”); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.”). The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and Motion to Receive Notice of Filing by E-mail, and dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous. An Order is issued separately. /s/ AMY BERMAN JACKSON United States District Judge DATE: September 8, 2021 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.
