Brett v. Walton ( 2013 )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 1 6 2013
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District
Courts tor the o·~t . & Bankruptcy
k net ot Columbia
Frank Brett, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
Civil Action No. 13 {1{$64
Judge Reggie Walton et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed informapauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is
required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Plaintiff is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suing U.S. District Judge Reggie B.
Walton of this Court and a list of other defendants. Plaintiff states that on December 18, 2012,
"all the logistics and civil rights harassment have been coming from Federal Judge Reggie
Walton of Washington DC. I would see attorneys Andrea Carter [a named defendant] and 2
other attorneys follow me into the Washington DC Federal Courthouse. I have the logistics as
evidence." Compl. at 2. The remainder of the 19-page complaint is simply incomprehensible.
The complaint presents the very type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting
dismissal ofthe case under§ 1915(e) as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,325
(1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, complaints, such as
this one, that lack "an arguable basis in law and fact" are, too, subject to dismissal as frivolous.
I
(N) 4
Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984); see Crisafi v.
Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("A court may dismiss as frivolous
complaints reciting bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts, or postulating
events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind."). A separate Order of dismissal
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: January_//__, 2013
2