Miller v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 5:2019cv01620 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2019)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this matter. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. An appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 11/7/19. (K,C)

Download PDF
Miller v. Federal Bureau of Investigation Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CHADWICK LYNN MILLER, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:19 CV 1620 JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Chadwick Lynn Miller filed this action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges terrorists installed thought reading transmission technology on him against his will. He alleges FBI did not inform him of the technology and he discovered it from other sources. He states he reported it to the FBI and they told him they were taking him to the hospital for an MRI. Instead, a Canton police officer took him to a mental health facility where he was administered large doses of narcotics. He seeks $200,000,000,000.00 in damages. Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. That Application is granted Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a Dockets.Justia.com claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998). The Court, however, is given discretion to refuse to accept without question the truth of Plaintiff’s allegations when they may be fairly described as fanciful, fantastic, delusional, wholly incredible, or irrational. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). The case at bar undoubtedly presents just such a Complaint. It does not contain a plausible statement of fact or a -2- decipherable legal claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted, and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: November 7, 2019 /s/ John R. Adams JOHN R. ADAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides: An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good faith. -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.