Rattler v. Department of Health and Human Services
This text of Rattler v. Department of Health and Human Services (Rattler v. Department of Health and Human Services) 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.
Opinion
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CouRT Al$ 29 m I~OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA out u_s_ District and bankruptcy Courts
Clyde Lacy Ratt1er, ) ) Plaintiff, )
l l 4 7
v. ) Civil Action N0. 1 2 2
) Department of Health ) and Human Services el al., ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperz`s. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(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 District of Columbia resident seeking a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus against the Department of Health and Human Services and an "unknown name employee." Compl. Caption. Although plaintiff complains initially about the alleged denial of his application submitted in 1983 for "social security benefit[s]," the complaint disintegrates into a variety of unsubstantiated claims of treason (Count ll), conspiracy (Count lll), breach of "an express or implied . . . contract" (Count III), theft (Count IV), "lied" (Count V), and "violation of plaintiffI’s] equal protection right" (Count Vl). As for the relief sought, plaintiff only "demand[s] a court order in the nature of a[] writ of mandamus compelling the human race to go
naked on the sidewalk for eternity unable to move their body." Compl. at 2, 3, 4, 6, 7-8, 9.
The complaint presents the type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal under § l9l5(e)(2) as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 3l9, 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 Bd. ofParole, 734 F.Zd 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984); see Crisafl` v. Holland, 655 F.Zd 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. l981) ("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."). The instant complaint satisfies the foregoing standard. A separate Order
of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
United States Dist 1ct Judge
Date:August Q,& ,2012
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rattler v. Department of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rattler-v-department-of-health-and-human-services-dcd-2012.