Head v. National Security Administration of the United States

District of Columbia

Head v. National Security Administration of the United States

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedAugust 2, 2013

DocketCivil Action No. 2013-1192

StatusPublished

This text of Head v. National Security Administration of the United States (Head v. National Security Administration of the United States) 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

Head v. National Security Administration of the United States, (D.D.C. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR 'rHE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA F I L E D AUG - Robin H@ad, ) a k 2 2013 ) f ’ U‘S- D»"sz ' Plaintiff, ) courts f°' the Di;ltcricgt ci?:gltiizlirittii); ) v. ) Civil Action N0. ) l?> -l l 9 l NSA er al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i).

Plaintiff is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, and former "owner of Playboy Escorts, a call girl service" in Houston, Texas. Compl. at 1 & Attach. She sues the United States and certain agencies and agency components for "predatory sextortions" allegedly committed by the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central lntelligence Agency, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearrns and Explosives. Compl. at l. Plaintiff alleges that such acts were committed "via military equipment, intelligence/counter-intelligence, hacking, wiretap, etc.," and that "President Bill Clinton was their stated target for me to take out initially," but that "state & political officials such as judges, etc. was [sic] also stated as part of the endless list." Id. The foregoing statements are just the first paragraph of the complaint,

which continues in this incredulous manner for four more pages.

Plaintiff cites her previous case the District of Nevada dismissed, not surprisingly, "with prejudice as delusional and frivolous." Ia’. at 6; see Heaa’ v. FB1, N0. 2:08-CV-0l028, 2008 WL 4981347 (D.Nev. Nov. l9, 2008) (finding the plaintiffs similarly pleaded allegations "fantastic, delusional, irrational, and frivolous"). The instant complaint fares no better because it, too, presents the type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal of the case under section l9l5(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); see also Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind."). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/ game

United States DistiictjHdg

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR 'rHE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA F I L E D AUG - Robin H@ad, ) a k 2 2013 ) f ’ U‘S- D»"sz ' Plaintiff, ) courts f°' the Di;ltcricgt ci?:gltiizlirittii); ) v. ) Civil Action N0. ) l?> -l l 9 l NSA er al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i).

Plaintiff is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, and former "owner of Playboy Escorts, a call girl service" in Houston, Texas. Compl. at 1 & Attach. She sues the United States and certain agencies and agency components for "predatory sextortions" allegedly committed by the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central lntelligence Agency, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearrns and Explosives. Compl. at l. Plaintiff alleges that such acts were committed "via military equipment, intelligence/counter-intelligence, hacking, wiretap, etc.," and that "President Bill Clinton was their stated target for me to take out initially," but that "state & political officials such as judges, etc. was [sic] also stated as part of the endless list." Id. The foregoing statements are just the first paragraph of the complaint,

which continues in this incredulous manner for four more pages.

Plaintiff cites her previous case the District of Nevada dismissed, not surprisingly, "with prejudice as delusional and frivolous." Ia’. at 6; see Heaa’ v. FB1, N0. 2:08-CV-0l028, 2008 WL 4981347 (D.Nev. Nov. l9, 2008) (finding the plaintiffs similarly pleaded allegations "fantastic, delusional, irrational, and frivolous"). The instant complaint fares no better because it, too, presents the type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal of the case under section l9l5(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); see also Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind."). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/ game

United States DistiictjHdg

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Head v. National Security Administration of the United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/head-v-national-security-administration-of-the-uni-dcd-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack