United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro
STEPHANIE L. RITTER PLAINTIFF
COBRA KIOSK HAND FINGERPRINT SYSTEM et al. DEFENDANTS
H. McKinley Jr., United States District Court Senior Judge
a pro se action filed by a convicted prisoner on a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint form. The Court has granted
Plaintiff Stephanie L. Ritter leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. This matter is before the Court for screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court will dismiss this action.
is incarcerated at the Daviess County Detention Center
(DCDC). She brings suit against Daviess County; DCDC; Cobra
Kiosk Hand Fingerprint System; and the “Social Security
In the Statement of Claim(s) section of the complaint,
Plaintiff writes as follows:
On 2016, I was arrested for DUI, and I use to have with
Marines Cobra Choppers and my Dad was a detective who died
because of heart attack. When I was arrested, I swore on my
bible about complaints of being harassed by the Cobra and
[illegible] System. I'd see colors of Marines jobs around
town and I was harshly punished as a child by Marines. The
problem is with my palms are all ruined cut up do to making
the legal system work. It's like hundreds of pounds metel
on metel. I believe I've been constitutional violated by
this fingerprinted and scanner body scan because every time
I've been arrested this facility Daviess County Detention
Center gets new equipment. My nerves were clenched on in one
of the cell rooms after swearing on bible and it about
paralized me. And my middle finger's twisting up and in.
In 3rd grade I calapse in teacher's arms
because main veins in skull whent through skulls. I've
worked with only flying chopper vehicles groundsman. Passing
over the color core to the airmen. This town had a lot of
murders and they needed this system with the alcohol
distillery. The system keeps wanting me to pass their laws
and I've had a stroke at times due to an broker newspaper
stock and bond back in the 80's, and the business the
detention center has. I have seen brown bubbles with faces in
the sky, high computer technologys. My right thumb has grown
bigger in the 80's due to China or America it happened in
Shawnee Dr. Owensboro Ky. With my stroke I have to exercise a
palm exercise also I was hit by a radiatron loom of the solar
system and hospitalized by [illegible] in a children
hospital. Most recent incodent was 2019.
Relief section of the complaint, Plaintiff writes, “I
just want to get some of the hacking system off.”
Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental
entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review
the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under §
1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss
the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the Court
determines that it 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.
See § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 544
U.S. 199 (2007).
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; Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (indicating that an
action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are
delusional or “rise to the level of the irrational or
the wholly incredible”). The Court need not accept as
true factual allegations that are “‘fantastic or
delusional'” in reviewing a complaint for
frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471
(6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
Plaintiffs allegations contain no legal theories upon which a
valid federal claim may rest and are fantastic and wholly
incredible. Therefore, dismissal on the basis of
frivolousness is appropriate. See Abner v. SBC
(Ameritech), 86 Fed.Appx. 958, 958-59 (6th Cir. 2004).
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 meets this standard as well.
foregoing reasons, the instant action will be ...