Torjman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided June 21, 2010·No. Civil Action No. 2010-1031·Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MIREILLE TORJMAN,

Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-1031 (JDB) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint, "[n]otwithstanding

any filing fee," upon a determination that it is "frivolous or malicious" or "fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff Mireille Torjman alleges that

the United States government is using various forms of "mind control" on her, including

"synthetic telepathy," "psychotronics," and other forms of surveillance, and seeks unspecified

damages and injunctive relief against several federal agencies. Compl. at 1-20. Complaints that

describe fantastic or delusional scenarios or contain "fanciful factual allegation[s]" are subject to

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); accord

Ruston v. Bush, 298 Fed. App'x 16, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31

(D.C. Cir. 1994). This complaint qualifies for such treatment and, thus, is dismissed. A separate

Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge Date: June 21, 2010

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Torjman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, (D.D.C. 2010).

Torjman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (Torjman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Tony Best v. Sharon Pratt Kelly, Mayor
39 F.3d 328 (D.C. Circuit, 1994)
Ruston v. Bush
298 F. App'x 16 (D.C. Circuit, 2008)