Northcutt v. United States Justice Department, The et al

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing this action, and denying leave to proceed in forma pampers on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 4/22/14. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-00648-BNB
MICHAEL WAYNE NORTHCUTT, JR., aka
MICHAEL W. DIRICKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT,
ERIC HOLDER,
THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISON’S [sic]
APPROXIMATELY 12 UNKNOWN AGENT’S [sic] OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
and
“ELIZABETH WOOD,” Her Attorney’s [sic] and/or Heirs,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Michael Wayne Northcutt, Jr., also known as Michael W. Dirickson, is a
prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at the United States
Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum, in Florence, Colorado. He filed pro se a Prisoner
Complaint (ECF No. 1) for money damages, and injunctive and habeas corpus relief.
He has been granted leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court must construe Mr. Northcutt’s Prisoner Complaint liberally because he
is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972);
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). If the complaint reasonably can
be read “to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, [the Court] should do
so despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various
legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with

pleading requirements.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. However, the Court does not act as an
advocate for a pro se litigant. See id. For the reasons stated below, the complaint and
the action will be dismissed.
Mr. Northcutt contends that from March or April 2005 to the present, Defendants
stole or held on to his “patent or invention the E-Reader, Nook and Kindle,” or stole
profits apparently from the sale of those items. He further contends the Drug
Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence
Agency, BOP, or other “agents of the government” conspired to torture him physically,
spiritually, and psychologically for seven years by causing him pain and muscle spasms
and using “classified technology and parabolic sound, radiation, threats to kill the
plaintiff to torture and kill his friends & family.” ECF No. 1 at 3. He makes numerous
other equally vague and conclusory allegations for which he fails to provide factual
support.
Subsection (e)(2)(B) of § 1915 requires a court to dismiss sua sponte an action
at any time if the action is frivolous, malicious, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. Mr. Northcutt’s allegations are factually
frivolous. A claim is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A legally frivolous claim rests on “an indisputably
meritless legal theory,” such as a claim that a non-existent legal interest has been
infringed. Id. at 327. In addition, a claim is factually frivolous if it depicts “fantastic or
delusional scenarios,” id. at 328, or where “the facts alleged rise to the level of the
irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). The
Court finds that Mr. Northcutt’s claims rest on “fantastic or delusional scenarios” whose

2

factual contentions are “clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28. Mr. Northcutt is
not entitled to relief on his claims. The Prisoner Complaint and the action will be
dismissed as factually frivolous.
Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status
will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438
(1962). If Mr. Northcutt files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $505.00
appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App.
P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1) and the action are
dismissed as factually frivolous. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that any pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 22nd

day of

April

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3