PATEL v. UNITED STATES et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 09/08/2021. (znmg)

Case 1:21-cv-02263-UNA Document 7 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
RAJ K. PATEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
SEPT. 8, 2021

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia

Civil Action No. 21-2263 (UNA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint,
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and “Motion to Receive Notice of Filing by Email.”1 Under the statute governing in forma pauperis proceedings, the Court is required to
dismiss a case “at any time” it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that its factual allegations, including
assertions that defendants have taken his “intellectual property [and] word patterns, through means
and methods of advanced weaponry . . . [under] the control of the United States, . . . the F.B.I.
and/or C.I.A.,” Compl. at 2-3 (emphasis removed), largely are incoherent, irrational or wholly
incredible. As such, the complaint is subject to dismissal as frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged

The original complaint (ECF No. 1) and application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2)
did not bear plaintiff’s signature as is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Pursuant to the
Court’s August 27, 2021, Order (ECF No. 4), plaintiff submitted signed copies of these
documents (ECF Nos. 5-6).
1
1

Case 1:21-cv-02263-UNA Document 7 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2

rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]”); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989) (“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions,
is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d
1305, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints . . . postulating
events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.”).
The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and Motion to Receive
Notice of Filing by E-mail, and dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as
frivolous. An Order is issued separately.

/s/
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
United States District Judge
DATE: September 8, 2021

2