Odemns v. White House

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 9, 2015
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2015-0862
• Status: Published

Opinion

WWW*WWVWWWMWW, , _ . . ,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GEORGE LEE ODEMNS III, ) ) Plaintiff. ) ) Case: 1:15-cv-00862 Jury Demand v. ) Assigned To : Unassigned ) Assign. Date : 6/9/2015 WHITE HOUSE, 61 al., ) Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F Deck) ) Defendants. ) W

The trial court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational or wholly incredible. Demon v. Hernandez, 504 US. 25, 33 (1992); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 US. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact"). Having reviewed the plaintiffs complaint, the Court concludes that what factual contentions are identifiable are baseless and wholly incredible. Plaintiff” s allegations that defendants “have been collecting data (sounds, words, thoughts, dreams) from [him] for financial profit without consent . . . with the aide of other technology (microchips, satellite, audio/visual recorder) . . . and then distributed to US Federal employees, contractors and international government entities,” Compl. at 1-2, do not comprise viable legal claims. Furthermore, the allegations of the complaint “constitute the sort of patently

insubstantial claims” that deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. T ooley v. Napolitano,

586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (DC. Cir. 2009).

The Court will grant plaintiff‘s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An Order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: 30/5 l/Sfiizv ,

United States District Judge ‘1