Tazewell v. Obama

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 14, 2010
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2010-0793
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 1 4 2010 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptc Courts for the District of CO/Umbra

ANTWINE A. TAZEWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 10 0793 BARACK OBAMA, et ai., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and pro se civil 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 US.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 US.

319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has the authority to dismiss not only

claims based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions

are clearly baseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of

cases whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. !d. at 328. 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. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 US. 25, 33 (1992).

Plaintiff alleges that the government has implanted devices in his body, and that these

devices control his mind and body functions. See Compl. at 4-6 (page numbers designated by the

I r ~ Court). These devices allegedly cause plaintiff "'extreme' pain and suffering physically,

psychologically, emotionally and financially for their cognitive interrogation." Id. at 5. He

demands that the implants be removed immediately, and also demands compensation of $5

billion. Id. at 16.

The Court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent

standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

u.s. 519,520 (1972). Having reviewed plaintiffs complaint, the court concludes that its factual

contentions are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaint is frivolous and

must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.c. § 19l5(e)(2)(B)(i). An Order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

United States District Judge DATE: