Summary
denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing inmate's complaint where he alleged that the sheriff's department was using telepathy and mind control to allow others to have access to his memories
Summary of this case from Mitchell v. DozierOpinion
No. C 02-2382 CRB (PR), ORDER OF DISMISSAL, (Docs # 3, 4 7)
June 10, 2002
Plaintiff, while incarcerated at the Contra Costa County Jail in Martinez, California, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department is using "telepathy/mind control" to harass and torture him. He was recently transferred to San Quentin State Prison and seeks leave to amend the complaint (doc # 7), which is granted.
In the operative amended complaint, plaintiff again alleges that the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department has violated his constitutional rights "by imposing telepathy mind control and allowing others to have access to [his] memories." He specifically alleges, for example, that the Sheriff's Department has allowed the "women's module" to go through his memories and telepathically cause him to experience muscle cramps, panting, headaches and cardiovascular problems.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief and leave to proceed in forma pauper is under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. Analysis
Sections 1915 and 1915A accord judges the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss as frivolous those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). Examples are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios with which federal district judges are all too familiar. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). To pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations means that a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff's allegations. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible. See id. at 32-33.
Plaintiff's allegations that he has been subjected to various harassment and torture through the use of telepathy/mind control are factually frivolous under Denton. The allegations rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible and accordingly will be dismissed under the authority of sections 1915 and 1915A. See id.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (docs # 3 4) is DENIED and the complaint is DISMISSED.
The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.