United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
October 1, 2014
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al.
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Andre Cheatom brings this action against the Central Intelligence Agency, DARPA, the F.B.I., the United States government, and the Department of Defense. He also filed an amended motion to proceed informa pauperis, which the Court will grant. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs complaint.
As plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss his complaint if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). It is legally baseless if"based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, " Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995), and factually baseless "when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory statements and naked assertions will not suffice. Id
Plaintiff appears to be alleging that the entire federal government, and several federal agencies in particular, are subjecting him to "electronic harassment" and "cyber harassment." He alleges that the public has observed this harassment through "a federally allowed entertainment channel." As a result of the alleged harassment, plaintiff claims to have sustained injuries to his brain, lung, heart, eyes, face, and chest, as well as emotional injuries. Having reviewed the complaint, the Court cannot ascertain non-frivolous basis for a claim. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint with prejudice pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). An appropriate order follows, which shall be docketed separately.
AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2014, upon consideration of plaintiff's amended motion to proceed informa pauperis (Document No. 3) and his pro se complaint, it is ORDERED that:
1. Leave to proceed informa pauperis is GRANTED.
2. The complaint is DISMISSED in accordance with the Court's memorandum.
3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.