Buffalo v. Commissioner of Mental Health, et al, No. 7:2014cv00323 - Document 15 (W.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 10/31/2014. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Buffalo v. Commissioner of Mental Health, et al Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION CLARENCE GARFIELD BUFFALO, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 7:14cv00323 MEMORANDUM OPINION By: Michael F. Urbanski United States District Judge Clarence Garfield Buffalo, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 naming the Commissioner of Mental Health, a psychiatrist, two attorneys, and a state court judge as defendants. Having reviewed Buffalo’s complaint, the court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice as frivolous.1 Buffalo alleges that the defendants “brainwash[ed] frivolous information reports to all [his] one-time long-ago attorneys.” Buffalo claims that the defendants “would get the lawyers to get the judge to hand down a state court order to keep [him] held up in the hospital just by keeping [him] drugg[ed] up on [his] 2 biannual state court hearing[s] [and] tampered with the nature of a case by giving large doses of medication treatment.” Buffalo asks the court to, inter alia, award him damages and appoint him counsel “to get [his] hospital medical records from” the defendants. The court must dismiss a case if it determines that the action “frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A “frivolous” claim is one that “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989) (interpreting “frivolous” in former version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). The court’s statutory authority to summarily dismiss 1 Buffalo also filed a “motion brief file follow up,” which the court construes as a motion to amend his complaint to add “Taxpayers,” “State Hospital Employees,” “the Commonwealth Attorney,” and a social worker at Western State Hospital as defendants to this action. However, having reviewed the motion, the court denies the amendment as futile because Buffalo fails to allege any cognizable facts against these defendants. Dockets.Justia.com frivolous complaints includes “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Id. at 32728. Buffalo’s legal claims under § 1983 are clearly baseless and, therefore, the court will summarily dismiss the action under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) without prejudice as frivolous. Entered: October 31, 2014 Michael F. Urbanski Michael F. Urbanski United States District Judge
]]>
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.
