Brown v. Office of Congressional, Legislative & Public Affairs

District of Columbia

Brown v. Office of Congressional, Legislative & Public Affairs

587 F. Supp. 2d 131, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94275

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedNovember 19, 2008

DocketCivil Action 08 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 587 F. Supp. 2d 131 (Brown v. Office of Congressional, Legislative & Public Affairs) 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

Brown v. Office of Congressional, Legislative & Public Affairs, 587 F. Supp. 2d 131, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94275 (D.D.C. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES ROBERTSON, District Judge.

The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis, but will dismiss the complaint as frivolous and delusional.

The complaint states that the plaintiff is “being attacked by the ‘practices of the occult.’ ” (Compl. at 1.) The plaintiff sought action in this matter from the Department of Justice, which responded that it did not handle matters of this sort. (Id.) Now plaintiff seeks, presumably, an order that would require the Department of Justice to act. (Id. at 2.) Identifying the defendants as the federal government, plaintiff asks the defendants to “produce a bill or a formal resolution” “that would state or give the practice or this occult type of movement legallity [sic].” (Id.) “The refusal of this government or then-law enforcement to aid the plaintiff ... is permitting or allowing this to continue to go on.” (Id.) The complaint seeks a bill “that would say that these things is legal,” (id. at 3), and it also seeks “for this practice to be completely shut down,” (id.).

*132 This complaint presents precisely the sort of “fantastic or delusional scenarios” that warrant dismissal. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (requiring dismissal of frivolous complaints).

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES ROBERTSON, District Judge.

The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis, but will dismiss the complaint as frivolous and delusional.

The complaint states that the plaintiff is “being attacked by the ‘practices of the occult.’ ” (Compl. at 1.) The plaintiff sought action in this matter from the Department of Justice, which responded that it did not handle matters of this sort. (Id.) Now plaintiff seeks, presumably, an order that would require the Department of Justice to act. (Id. at 2.) Identifying the defendants as the federal government, plaintiff asks the defendants to “produce a bill or a formal resolution” “that would state or give the practice or this occult type of movement legallity [sic].” (Id.) “The refusal of this government or then-law enforcement to aid the plaintiff ... is permitting or allowing this to continue to go on.” (Id.) The complaint seeks a bill “that would say that these things is legal,” (id. at 3), and it also seeks “for this practice to be completely shut down,” (id.).

*132 This complaint presents precisely the sort of “fantastic or delusional scenarios” that warrant dismissal. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (requiring dismissal of frivolous complaints).

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 F. Supp. 2d 131, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-office-of-congressional-legislative-public-affairs-dcd-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack