United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Western Division
DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case is before the court on Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #
1) and the Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. # 4) that
reassigned this case to the undersigned. Plaintiff has been
granted in forma pauperis status. (Doc. # 4 at 1).
But the Magistrate Judge who initially presided over this
case has recommended that the court dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint as frivolous and meritless. (Id. at 3).
After a review of Plaintiff's Complaint and the
Magistrate Judge's Order, the court concludes that the
complaint is due to be dismissed because it is frivolous
and fails to state a claim.
actions where a plaintiff has been granted in forma
pauperis status, the court is obligated to dismiss the
action if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii).
An action is frivolous if (1) a plaintiff's factual
allegations are “clearly baseless” or (2) a
plaintiff's legal theory of relief is “indisputably
meritless.” Smith v. Hildebrand, 244 F.
App'x 288, 290 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Carroll v.
Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). When
determining whether a complaint is frivolous, the court
possesses “not only the authority to dismiss a claim
based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the
unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's
factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.” Miller v.
Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).
“[W]ildly implausible allegations in the complaint
should not be taken to be true[.]” Id.
court conducts the review required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) using the standards applied to motions
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Alba v.
Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must “state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although “[t]he
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement, '” the complaint must demonstrate
“more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Id. A plausible claim for
relief requires “enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable
expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” to
support the claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. In
considering a motion to dismiss, a court should “1)
eliminate any allegations in the complaint that are merely
legal conclusions; and 2) where there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, ‘assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
to relief.'” Kivisto v. Miller, Canfield,
Paddock & Stone, PLC, 413 F. App'x 136, 138 (11th
Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (quoting Am. Dental Assn. v.
Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010)).
court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's description and
analysis of the complaint, quoted at length below.
A review of the instant submission reveals fantastic and
delusional allegations that fail to state any conceivable
claim, are legally frivolous, and lack merit. Plaintiff
claims she is the victim of a government attack whereby the
walls of her home are “covered with faces of people
whom died in the government, the Army.” (Doc. 1 at 1).
The government, she claims, has talked to her “through
the television” and follows her to the “present
date.” (Id.). Additionally, she alleges the
government attack has occurred at Watergate Apartments where
the doors were “barrackaded [sic] with guards and women
held skulls.” (Id.). “People have been
electricuted [sic] and burned, ” she contends.
(Id.). [Plaintiff] pleads for “release of
imprisonment of a government attack.” (Id.).
Attached to her complaint, [Plaintiff] includes an
“Alabama Uniform Incident/Offense Report.” (Doc.
1 at 2). . . . Additionally, Thomas attaches what purports to
be medical records to her complaint. (Doc. 1 at 5). To the
extent these records are credible, they indicate [P]laintiff
suffers from psychiatric problems. (Id.). While the
court is not insensitive to the fact that the [P]laintiff may
be clinically delusional, the delusional allegations she has
made in an effort to commence this litigation against the
United States Government are too fantastic and frivolous to
(Doc. # 4 at 3-4). At a bare minimum, Plaintiff's
allegations are “wildly implausible” and cannot
be accepted as true by the court. Miller, 541 F.3d
at 1100. Therefore, this action is due to be dismissed as
frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
the complaint is due to be dismissed for failure to state a
claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The complaint
fails to allege which federal statute or provision of the
federal Constitution Defendants have violated. (See
Doc. # 1 at 1). And the court is unable to conceive of a
claim for relief that Plaintiff's allegations plausibly
fit, even if it were able to accept her allegations as true
(and, to be clear, it cannot). Cf. Kivisto, 413 F.
App'x at 138.
the court would grant a plaintiff one chance to amend his or
her complaint before subjecting it to dismissal. In this
case, however, the court finds that granting Plaintiff leave
to amend her complaint would be futile because her factual
allegations are clearly baseless. See Cockrell v.
Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007).
these reasons, this action is due to be dismissed as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). An ...