United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
GENE DESHAWN M. WATKINS PLAINTIFF
FBI HEAD AGENT AMY HESS DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
N. Stivers, Judge United States District Court.
Gene DeShawn M. Watkins filed a pro se complaint (DN
1) along with a motion for “This has inflicted extreme
Hardship on Me” (DN 4), which the Court construes as a
supplement to the complaint. Plaintiff also filed a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (DN 3). Upon
consideration, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (DN 3).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis,
the Court must review the complaint (DN 1) and its supplement
(DN 4) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
complaint form, Plaintiff alleges claims of “rape,
statory rape, racial Discrimination, Low Level prostitution,
violation of my 4th admendment rights obsessive
force.” As his statement of the claim, he writes:
“This has inflicted great amount of hardship on me I
been gettin raped by female agents and they invisible I might
have 100 kids.” In the supplement, Plaintiff makes the
following allegations, among others: he was taken hostage by
“CIA Simmons” and the “LMPD” in May
2002; he is successful and has come up with inventions;
“I could make a woman have screamin orgasms w/o touchin
her wont be in the room or state how it work you need
government earphones which was givin to new reporters . . .
.”; and his apartment is bugged “by the
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a district court must
dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may,
therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on
an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327.
“Examples of the former class are claims against which
it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit . . .
and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly
does not exist[.]” Id. “Examples of the
latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional
scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all
too familiar.” Id. at 328. While a reviewing
court must liberally construe pro se pleadings,
Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per
curiam), to avoid dismissal, a complaint must include
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Although this Court
recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a
less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the
duty “does not require us to conjure up unpled
allegations.” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16,
19 (1st Cir. 1979).
Court finds that this action must be dismissed as frivolous
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An action has no arguable
factual basis when the allegations are delusional or
“rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
33 (1992); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1199
(6th Cir. 1990); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that a court need not
accept as true factual allegations that are
“‘fantastic or delusional'” in
reviewing a complaint for frivolousness (quoting
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328)). Those characterizations
clearly apply to Plaintiff's allegations.
addition, “a district court may, at any time, sua
sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are
totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous,
devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”
Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999).
The instant complaint and supplement meet this standard as
foregoing reasons, the instant action will be dismissed by
Court advises that in the complaint and amended complaint,
Plaintiff makes allegations very similar to allegations made
in other lawsuits filed in or removed to this Court and which
this Court dismissed as frivolous and/or for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction due to the complaint describing
“fantastic or delusional scenarios.” See,
e.g., Watkins v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No.
3:14CV-585-JGH (finding that complaint fit within the
“essentially fictitious” pleadings standard where
Plaintiff alleged, among other things, federal cameras which
could see through clothes and walls were in his ceiling fan
and F.B.I. agents made death threats against him and were
having sex with little girls in a sex slave ring);
Watkins v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No.
3:13CV-204-CRS (finding that complaint with similar
allegations described “fantastic or delusional
scenarios” and must be dismissed for failure to ...