Floyd v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 1)(JC)

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Sonny James Floyd, it is the Recommendation of the Mag. Judge that this case be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Objections to R&R due by 8/25/2005. Signed by Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson on 8/10/05. (vmc, )

Floyd v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 1)(JC)

Doc. 4

Case 2:05-cv-00718-MEF-VPM

Document 4

Filed 08/10/2005

Page 1 of 4

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION SONNY JAMES FLOYD, #203115, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) AL AB AM A DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-718-F WO

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Sonny James Floyd ["Floyd"], a state inmate, complains that correctional officials and mental health personnel have violated his constitutional rights. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of this case prior to service of process is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1

DISCUSSION Floyd asserts that during the periods of his confinement over the past six years he "started hearing voices . . . and not just voices. They were actually talking to me through a micro computer chip that was put in my brain. They do it from a computer through a
1

A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint

s c r e e n e d in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires t h e court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint is f r i v o l o u s , malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant w h o is imm u n e from such relief. 28 U . S . C . § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:05-cv-00718-MEF-VPM

Document 4

Filed 08/10/2005

Page 2 of 4

satilight (sic) or something in space. I could talk to them and they could talk to me." Plaintiff's Complaint at 1-2. He argues that "[s]omebody in the Dept. of Corrections has [terrorized] me from 1999 until 2003" utilizing the implanted computer chip. Id. at 2. This court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint "if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see also, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).2 This section gives a federal district court "the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Examples of such claims are those that describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios." Id. at 328. The plaintiff's allegations in the instant case fit squarely into the prohibited category. Thus, after careful review of his complaint, the court readily concludes that the facts alleged by the plaintiff are irrational and are perhaps indicative of the plaintiff's delusional state. The allegations contained in the present complaint are a paradigm of those claims which should be subject to dismissal for frivolousness as they are truly fantastic and wholly incredible. Accordingly, the plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Denton v Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke, supra.
2

A l t h o u g h Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to § 1915(e)(2),

t h e analysis contained therein remains applicable to the directives of the present statute.

2

Case 2:05-cv-00718-MEF-VPM

Document 4

Filed 08/10/2005

Page 3 of 4

CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It is further ORDERED that on or before 25 August 2005 the parties may file objections to this Recommendation. Any objections filed must clearly identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge 's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

3

Case 2:05-cv-00718-MEF-VPM

Document 4

Filed 08/10/2005

Page 4 of 4

Done this 10th day of August, 2005.

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4