Jones v. I A Officials et al
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A becauseit is frivolous. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 12/5/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RALPH EUGENE JONES,
I.A. OFFICIALS, et al.,
CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-823-JD-MGG
OPINION AND ORDER
Ralph Eugene Jones, a prisoner without a lawyer, is an inmate at Westville Correctional
Facility. He has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officers and an
assistant warden. (ECF 1.) Jones makes many implausible allegations in his complaint. Jones
alleges that correctional officers are using “virtual reality gaming” to torture him and that he has
“a cell full of virtual evidence right now in bags and plastic bottles,” which contain “clear moving
muscle like forms of virtual emesis1.” Jones also claims that “things are sliding in [his] body, anus,
ears, eyes, nose, etc.” He seeks money damages, an immediate transfer, and media coverage.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this court is required to review cases filed by prisoners and
must dismiss claims if they are frivolous or malicious or if they fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Claims may be dismissed as factually frivolous if they are “clearly baseless,”
“fanciful,” “fantastic,” “delusional,” “irrational,” or “wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); and Gladney v.
Pendleton Correctional Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 2002). Jones’ allegations about
Emesis is a medical term for vomiting. http://c.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/emesis
correctional officers using virtual reality as torture are factually frivolous, warranting dismissal of
For these reasons, the court DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because
it is frivolous.
ENTERED: December 5, 2017
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?