Brett Maverick Madeker v. U.S. Military

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: October 27, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-01135
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

BRETT MAVERICK MADEKER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-01135-ACL ) U.S. MILITARY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Self-represented Plaintiff Brett Maverick Madeker brings this civil action against the U.S. Military for allegedly putting electronic devices in his brain and body. [Doc. 1 at 1-2]. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. 2]. Based on the financial information provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee for this matter. As such, the motion will be granted and the filing fee waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Furthermore, because Plaintiff is now proceeding in forma pauperis, his pleadings are subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on such review, the Court will dismiss this case as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel will be denied as moot. Background Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on the Court’s civil complaint form. [Doc. 1]. The filing is difficult to read due to nearly illegible handwriting, and it asserts highly unusual facts. Plaintiff identifies the defendant as the U.S. Military. [Id. at 1-2]. In the section for providing information on the defendant, Plaintiff states: “Electronic Devices in Human Body.”. [Id. at 2]. Where the form complaint prompts Plaintiff to state the facts supporting his claims, he alleges in part, in his own words: I was bugged by bad people when I was a child. I got sick when I joined the U.S. Army Reserve. Drill Sargeant High pinned me with a New Electronic Device. I’m legally Deaf on the Left Side of my Brain. Dr. Moore created a Implant for my Brain to compensate [for] the Electronic Harassment and my Hearing comes from my Right Ear. A U.S. Government Agent + Black African American Couple helped me and my Mother when they found the devices in me when I was young. I mean my favorite Basketball player was The Mailman Karl Malone. I started getting [illegible] Attacked in Nov 16, 2015 and I alerted the U.S. Government. …

[Id. at 5]. Plaintiff further states that his private parts “are bugged with devices” and that he has “Xrays and 8,000 [illegible] Implants” in his body. [Id. at 4]. Plaintiff seeks $500,000,000 in damages and he lists his injuries as being deaf in his left ear, “probably” having a shortened life, PTSD, depression, and sickness. [Id. at 4-6]. Legal Standard on Initial Review Federal law requires this Court to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if, among other reasons, it is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “[A] complaint … is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The term frivolous “embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Id. Accordingly, the Court may dismiss “those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” id. at 327, including those “allegations that are ‘fanciful, fantastic, [or] delusional.’” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328). Although “[a]n in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed … simply because the [C]ourt finds the plaintiff’s allegations unlikely,” “a finding of factual frivolousness 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.” Id. at 33. Complaints filed by laypeople “are to be given liberal construction.” Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). That means that “if the essence of an allegation is discernible

… then the district court should construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)). However, even pro se complaints must allege facts that, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. See Stone, 364 F.3d at 915 (explaining that even in a pro se case, federal courts need not “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”). Finally, giving a pro se complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that courts should interpret the procedural rules of civil litigation “so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.” See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Discussion

Having carefully reviewed and liberally construed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds that the allegations are frivolous. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief based on allegations that his brain and body were implanted with electronic devices by the U.S. Military that caused him to be deaf in one ear. The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed at least three prior cases in this Court where he alleged that electronic devices were implanted in his body by various people. 1 All of Plaintiff’s prior cases were dismissed for frivolity. Similarly, the Court finds that the allegations here are fanciful, fantastic, delusional, and rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible.

1 See Madeker v. State of Ill., No. 4:25-cv-01058-SRC (E.D. Mo. 2025) (dismissed Oct. 14, 2025 as frivolous); Madeker v. The Imaginary World Co., No. 4:25-cv-01059-JSD (E.D. Mo. 2025) (dismissed Oct. 23, 2025 as frivolous); Madeker v. Boston Scientific, No. 4:25-cv-01060-NCC (E.D. Mo. 2025) (dismissed Sept. 24, 2025 as frivolous). Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33. Plaintiff's Complaint is frivolous because it “lacks an arguable basis

... in law or in fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. In addition, the Court finds that these Complaint defects could not be remedied through amendment of the pleadings. As such, this action will be dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(). For the same reasons the Court deems Plaintiff’s Complaint frivolous, the Court is convinced that there would be no substantial question for review and that an appeal would be futile. Higgins v. Steele, 195 F.2d 366, 369 (8th Cir. 1952). The Court will therefore certify that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Finally, because this action is being dismissed as frivolous, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel as moot. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2] is GRANTED and the filing fee waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)@). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel [Doc. 3] is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Dated this 27" day of October, 2025.

STEPHEN N. EIMBAUGH, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE