Brett v. Walton

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJanuary 16, 2013
DocketCivil Action No. 2013-0064
StatusPublished

This text of Brett v. Walton (Brett v. Walton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brett v. Walton, (D.D.C. 2013).

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 1 6 2013 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District Courts tor the o·~t . & Bankruptcy k net ot Columbia

Frank Brett, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 13 {1{$64 Judge Reggie Walton et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed informapauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is

required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Plaintiff is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suing U.S. District Judge Reggie B.

Walton of this Court and a list of other defendants. Plaintiff states that on December 18, 2012,

"all the logistics and civil rights harassment have been coming from Federal Judge Reggie

Walton of Washington DC. I would see attorneys Andrea Carter [a named defendant] and 2

other attorneys follow me into the Washington DC Federal Courthouse. I have the logistics as

evidence." Compl. at 2. The remainder of the 19-page complaint is simply incomprehensible.

The complaint presents the very type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting

dismissal ofthe case under§ 1915(e) as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,325

(1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, complaints, such as

this one, that lack "an arguable basis in law and fact" are, too, subject to dismissal as frivolous. I

(N) 4 Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984); see Crisafi v.

Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("A court may dismiss as frivolous

complaints reciting bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts, or postulating

events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind."). A separate Order of dismissal

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: January_//__, 2013

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Salvatore G. Crisafi v. George E. Holland
655 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Circuit, 1981)
Tony Best v. Sharon Pratt Kelly, Mayor
39 F.3d 328 (D.C. Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brett v. Walton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brett-v-walton-dcd-2013.