Chapman v. Mehta

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 27, 2018
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2017-2812
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 2 ;/ 2038

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U S instruct & Bankruptcy

Courts for the Dtstrict of Coiumbia

Lamar Christopher Chapman` lll,

Plaintir`t`, Civil Action No. l7-2812 (UNA)

Amit Priyavadan l\/Iehta el al.,

\/\./\_/\/\_/\/\./\./V

Defendants.

l\/lEl\/lORANDUl\/I OPINION

Plaintit`f is a prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Correctional lnstitution in Loretto, Pennsylvania. He has filed a “Veritied Complaint for lnjunction; Declaratory Relief; Civil Rights Redress and Constitutional Reliet" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. at 2. For the reasons explained below, the in`/é)rma pauperis application will be granted and this case Will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Which requires immediate dismissal ofa prisoner’s complaint that fails to state a claim upon Which relief can be granted or is frivolous or malicious

"A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to reliefthat is plausible on its face.”’ A.s'hcr(q/i v, ]qbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atl. C()rp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (20()7). A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” is i`rivolous, Neilzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (l989), and a "complaint plainly abusive ofthe judicial process is properly typed malicious," Crz`sc(fi v Hollcma’, 655 F.Zd

1305,1309(D.C.Cir.l981).

W,"

Plaintiffis a self-described “life-long federal discoverer,” among other titles. Compl. at 7.l He names as defendants Judge Amit l\/lehta, who sits in this Court; Barry Soetoro, which is a name associated with former President Baracl< Obama, see Compl. at 10; the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate; and United Senators Patricl< J. Leahy and Richard Durban. Compl. Caption. Plaintiffs narrative comprising the prolix complaint is largely incomprehensible l\/lost discernible are the scurrilous comments about Judge l\/lehta and “Barry Soetoro.” See Compl. at 3, 8-9, 12-13. The attachments to the complaint suggest that this action stems from the dismissal of plaintiffs case by Judge l\/Iehta. See Compl. Attachs. at ECF pp. 55- 60 (dismissal order and related documents filed in Chapmmi v. Obama, No. l6-cv-l763). Plaintiff seems to fault the Senate defendants for their presumed role in Judge l\/Iehta’s elevation to the federal bench. See Compl. at 8 (stating that the Senate defendants are "case and controversy defendant[s] only for the verified claim of injunctive relief or declaratory relief’ as “the Couit is being asked to intervene and to enjoin the Article lll Senate confirmation of’ Judge l\/Iehta).

A court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible," Deiirc)n ix Her)icmdez, 504 U.S. 25` 33 (1992), or “postulat[e] events and circumstances ofa wholly fanciful kind,” Cri'squ, 655 F,Qd at 1307-08. In addition, a complaint against a federal judge premised on “nothing more than [the performance of his] duty" is “meritless,” F/emi`ng v. United$tates, 847 F. Supp. l70, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert denied 5l3 U.S. 1150 (1995), and is deemed "abusive” when it" contains disrespectful references to the court" or is "plainly abusive of the judicial process."` Cri'sqfi, 655

F.2d at 1309. ln addition to failing sorely to state a claim for relief, the instant complaint is

’ The page citations are those assigned by the Cl\/I/ECF system.

frivolous and malicious Consequently, the complaint and this case will be dismissed with

prejudice A separate order accompanies this l\/lemorandum Opinion.

Date: FebruaryL, 2018 United States District Judge

bJ