Paul v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 18, 2010
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2010-1980
• Status: Published

Opinion

®

FILED

umTEo sTATEs msTRIcT couRT N@V 1 3 2010

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA courts far the

WILLIAM J. PAUL,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civi| Action

) |\I)O 1980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed /'n forma pauper/sand pro secivil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint.

The court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(1)(B). In /Ve/tzke v. l/l/////am.504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

Plaintiff alleges that he "has been on military machinery . . . . called electro-

erk, U.S. Digt'rict_ & Bankrupr istrict of Columb,'a

magnetic pu|se" and that he is"under twenty-four hour surveillance which has been posted on the internet." Compl. at 1. He further alleges that he is "listening to the transmission of voices from this same website" and that he has received "threats . . . from government agencies as well as the public." _/'c/. He demands unspecihed compensation for the pain, discomfort, brain damage, and physical injury he has suffered. 10'. at 1-2.

The court is mindful that complaints filed by pro selitigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. $ee Ha/'nes v. /(erner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the court concludes that its factual contentions are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed. $ee 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

/’;Z“WWW/¢i @é/

United States /District Judge DATE= /5 ¢)¢zwj% ZD/z>