Jones v. Guzman

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: January 9, 2013
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2013-0029
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAN -9 2013 Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia Don E. Jones, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 13 IJ{;-29 ) Department of Justice ) Drug Enforcement Administration eta!. ) ) ) 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 District of Columbia resident suing the U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration, Secret Service, Central Intelligence Agency, and Federal Bureau of

Investigations. He states that "[t]his complaint is for illegal surveillance and illegal human

expearmentation [sic] by corrupt government agencies as discribed [sic] in the report

surveillanceissues.com." Compl. at 2. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that since January 2007, he

has been "connected to a recruiting satellite radio signal which is used for recruiting agents to

work undercover and in intelligence." !d. The complaint continues in this vein for three more

pages and concludes with plaintiffs demand for $1 trillion and "employment" with the listed

defendant agencies. !d. at 6.

N 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 that lack

"an arguable basis in law and fact" are, too, subject to dismissal as frivolous. Brandon v. District

of Columbia Ed. 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 1 ,2013