Inko-Tariah v. Bowser

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: July 11, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-1664
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHARLES AWUSIN INKO-TARIAH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-01643 (UNA) ) ) MURIEL BOWSER et 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. The Court will grant the application and

dismiss the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (requiring immediate dismissal of a

frivolous action).

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, has brought a tort action against D.C. Mayor

Muriel Bowser and Keven Vordran, identified as “Director of FBI, Washington Field Office.”

Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff alleges the following. In March 1994, then-U.S. Magistrate

Judge Deborah A. Robinson of this Court committed Plaintiff to St. Elizabeths Hospital for

evaluation and treatment. “[O]ne day between 1997-1998,” during the commitment period, “a

white man in doctor’s garment . . . suspected to be either FBI or CIA agent sneakily injected”

Plaintiff’s “molar gum with a tiny microchip without his consent or permission in order to better

track his movement for life under the guise of dental cleaning in violation of privacy[.]” Id. at 2-

3. Plaintiff faults the District for enabling “the U.S. government agencies especially the FBI to

carry out constant surveillance” of his life “for 26 years by means of remote electronic

surveillance.” Id. at 3. The allegations continue in this peculiar manner. See id. at 3-4. Plaintiff seeks from each defendant “compensatory damages of $10 million” and “punitive damages of $20

million . . . for the violation of his constitutional right to privacy and violation of DC Privacy Laws

for 26 years and counting possibly for the remainder of his natural life[.]” Id. at 9.

Complaints premised on fantastic or delusional scenarios or supported wholly by

allegations lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” may be dismissed as frivolous.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The instant complaint satisfies this standard and

therefore is dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: July 11, 2023 United States District Judge