Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blatt v. Central Intelligence Agency

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

April 4, 2018

JAMES ANDREW BLATT, Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM

          JOYNER, J.

         Plaintiff James Andrew Blatt, proceeding pro se, has filed this civil action against the Central Intelligence Agency and “Unknown Named Agents of the CIA.” He has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as well as a Consolidated Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and for the Appointment of Counsel, to which his Amended Complaint is attached. For the following reasons, the Court will grant Mr. Blatt leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant his Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, deny his Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, and dismiss his Complaint and Amended Complaint as frivolous.

         I. FACTS[1]

         Mr. Blatt alleges that eleven (11) years ago, he was with “two cohorts” in Ocean City, Maryland. (Am. Compl. at 2.) One of his cohorts was “flashing a pellet gun . . . at motorists for amusement.” (Id.) According to Mr. Blatt, a CIA officer was following him, and that officer “waved a gun back at [him] and his cohorts.” (Id.) He contends that “instead of methodically executing we three criminals back in ca. 2007, the CIA Officer bolstered his preexisting ill will and resentment towards [him].” (Id.) According to Mr. Blatt, he has “been followed the majority of his life (in excess of 21 years) by this master spy . . . and his operatives living locally to the Lehigh Valley, PA.” (Id. at 3.)

         On November 25, 2016, Mr. Blatt was celebrating Thanksgiving with his family. (Id.) He ate “a ball of mozzarella cheese with tomato” and “became profoundly disrupted in his bodily functioning in that [he] simply could not stop walking on account of chemically induced overabundant neurological stimulation from the dosed mozzarella.” (Id.) According to Mr. Blatt, CIA agents “dosed [his] mozzarella with [a] heinous stimulant drug which caused [him] to nearly walk headlong into moving traffic on the street.” (Id.)

         Mr. Blatt further alleges that CIA agents poisoned him by placing “radioactive/nuclear dust” on his car's steering wheel. (Id.) They also used his prescribed medication to poison him and cause him to experience a racing pulse. (Id. at 4.) According to Mr. Blatt, he would have “died by nuclear poisoning” if he had not received intravenous fluids on several occasions. (Id.) These poisons “caused neuronal changes in his brain which disrupted his personality on or about February 20, 2017 and are discerned and/or felt by said tingling sensations emanating down, and more generally all around, [his] scalp.” (Id.) His eyesight has also been disrupted from these nuclear poisons. (Id. at 5.)

         According to Mr. Blatt, the CIA has also “dupe[d] [his] pharmacist . . . into using their indistinguishable counterfeits as the medication dispensed to [him].” (Id. at 6.) On February 28, 2018, Mr. Blatt took one of these pills, which caused him “to have, for about 3 hours, a paralyzed, drooping and depressed looking face (like a stroke patient) and a dull, monotone voice.” (Id. at 5.) While at Northampton Community College, Mr. Blatt “perceived the walls as caving in on him and the ceiling as being mere inches above his head.” (Id.) His “personality was radically undone and [he] felt he was in critical need of a hospital.” (Id.)

         Mr. Blatt alleges that Defendants' actions have violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and the United Nations' Convention Against Torture. With respect to his RICO claim, he alleges that his

concrete financial loss is the $120.00 USD it will take to replace [his] vintage Levi “forever in blue jeans” blue jeans, which defendant CIA Agents custom tailored in repeated burglaries (their trespasses) to plaintiff's rented property . . . . Defendant's CIA Agents downsized one pair of [his] vintage Levi's from a marked size 32” waist to a size 28” waist and another from a marked size 31” waist to a size 29” waist, neither of which fit [his] 31” waist (as measured by [him] on or about 3/1/2018).

(Id. at 7.) He also vaguely raises claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as harassment. As relief, Mr. Blatt requests $1, 500, 000.00 and “a memorandum of understanding stipulating use of immunity to solve any homicide of James Andrew Blatt.” (Id. at 8.)

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Court will grant Mr. Blatt leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he is incapable of paying the fees necessary to commence this action. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) require the Court to dismiss the Complaint and Amended Complaint if they are frivolous or fail to state a claim. 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).

         Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether the complaint contains “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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.