Flores v. US Attorney General et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: The complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk shall close this case. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 7/31/2015. (Steinfeld, Sarah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ERIC FLORES,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:15-cv-0510 (JAM)

US ATTORNEY GENERAL and FEDERAL
BUERAL OF INVESTIGATION,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
A federal court may dismiss an in forma pauperis action “at any time” if it determines
that an action is “frivolous or malicious” or otherwise “fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007);
Patterson v. Rodgers, 708 F. Supp. 2d 225, 231–32 (D. Conn. 2010).
Plaintiff in this action has filed an in forma pauperis complaint alleging that
defendants—the U.S. Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation—have violated
his constitutional rights by “conspir[ing] to deprive [him] of a daily human basic need such as
bar of soap . . . a razor . . . or even spit on [his] daily meals,” and by “interfer[ing] with [his]
outgoing legal mail” while plaintiff was incarcerated in the El Paso County Detention Facility
Jail Annex in El Paso, Texas. Doc. #1 at 7. Plaintiff also claims, among other things, that
defendants “use[d] advanced technology with a direct signal to the satellite in outerspace [sic]”
to cause him “severe mental pain” and to kill his uncle, and have set up kangaroo courts “with
the specific intent of simulateing [sic] the legal process.” Id. at 8–9. Plaintiff seeks an injunction
prohibiting the alleged actions, a referral to the U.S. Department of Justice, and “general relief.”
Id. at 63.
Plaintiff’s action easily warrants dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B). To begin with, the

complaint alleges no facts that have anything to do with Connecticut for purposes of venue under
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Although the complaint states that defendants reside or work in Bridgeport
Connecticut, and that acts relevant to the complaint occurred in Bridgeport, Connecticut, see
Doc. #1 at 5, plaintiff lists defendants’ addresses in Washington, D.C. and El Paso, Texas, see id.
at 1, 64, and his factual allegations refer to no actions in Connecticut.
Moreover, plaintiff’s request—a “Petition to Challenge the Constitutionality of the First
Amendment”—and his allegations manifestly fail to state a plausible claim for relief. See, e.g.,
id. at 8 (“The organized group of executive employees of the federal government retaliated
against the invocation of the petitioners [sic] constitutional right by useing [sic] advanced
technology with a direct signal to the satelite [sic] in outerspace [sic] that has the capability of
calculateing [sic] genetic code to cause the petitioners Uncle Jorge Salas severe heart pain for
long durations exceeding calendar years inwhich [sic] was equivalent in intensity to cardiac and
respatory [sic] failure leading to a heart attack and resulting in the death of the petitioners [sic]
Uncle Jorge Salas.”). To the extent plaintiff alleges actionable harms at the hands of El Paso
County corrections officers, he fails to allege non-frivolous grounds on which to hold defendant
federal officials responsible. See, e.g., id. at 7 (“[T]he organized group of executive employees of
the federal government . . . were impersonateing [sic] detention officers . . . .”).
In short, plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and furnish no plausible or conceivable grounds
for relief. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven this 31st day of July 2015.

/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge
2