Suess v. Central Intelligence Agency et al
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER, DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Theresa J Suess. Complaint DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 7/24/13. (mlc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
THERESA J. SUESS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 4:13-CV-51-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
Theresa J. Suess, a pro se Plaintiff, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF
No. 1]. She also filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (in
forma pauperis) [ECF No. 2]. For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff’s Application is
DENIED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
DISCUSSION
Ordinarily, a plaintiff must pay a statutory filing fee of $350 to bring an action in federal
court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
provides indigent litigants an opportunity for meaningful access to the federal courts despite
their inability to pay the costs and fees associated with that access. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319 (1989). To authorize a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must make two
determinations: first, whether the litigant is unable to pay the costs of commencing the action, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); and second, whether the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Under the first inquiry, an indigent party may commence an action in federal court,
without prepayment of costs and fees, upon submission of an affidavit asserting an inability “to
pay such costs or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Here, the Plaintiff contends that
she receives approximately $660 per month in disability payments. Based on this income
information, it appears that she is financially eligible for in forma pauperis status.
The inquiry does not end there, however. District courts have an obligation under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints before service on the defendants, and must dismiss
the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. In determining whether the complaint
states a claim, the Court applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th
Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal under federal pleading standards,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009). Thus, a “plaintiff must do better than putting a few
words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has
happened to her that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400,
403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original).
In evaluating whether a complaint is frivolous for purposes of the in forma pauperis
statute, the Court need not “accept without question the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations.”
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992). Instead, the statute “accords judges not only the
authority to dismiss a claim based on an undisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual
2
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 325. This includes allegations that
are “fantastic” or “delusional.” Id. at 328.
Here, the Plaintiff alleges that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), along with other
governmental agencies and actors, including the President, have joined a conspiracy to torment
her, which began when she was a graduate student in Indianapolis in the late 1980s. The
conspiracy has allegedly continued to and including the present date, and includes among other
things, the CIA putting electrodes on her body, threatening to murder her, putting radio devices
in her pets, and hiring “20-something-year olds, mostly female,” who “interrupt my thinking,
[and] try to influence and disrupt my positive thoughts and behavior.” She indicates that mental
health professionals have diagnosed her with schizoaffective disorder, although she disagrees
with this diagnosis. Among other relief, she seeks $97 million in damages, and also requests that
the Court “reopen” a California family court case in which she lost custody of her daughter.
Upon review, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s allegations are implausible and
fantastical. Accordingly, the Complaint will be dismissed as frivolous. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
325; Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of
complaint as frivolous where the plaintiff alleged that over a span of three years, multiple guards
at three different prisons left his cell door unlocked at night while he was sleeping so that other
inmates could come in his cell and assault him); see also Schottler v. Wisconsin, 388 F. App’x
547 (7th Cir. Jul. 28, 2010) (affirming dismissal of complaint as frivolous, where plaintiff
alleged that someone had inserted a metal pin in his head and various state officials and police
officers had purposely ignored his pleas for help); Lawrence v. Interstate Brands, 278 F. App’x
3
681, 684 (7th Cir. May 22, 2008) (“Lawrence’s allegations—that the Illinois legal system is
controlled by the Ku Klux Klan and that a vast network composed of lawyers, judges, and his
former employers have conspired over the past 20 years to deny him equal protection of the
laws, harass him on the basis of his race, and defraud him—are frivolous under this standard.”).
The Court is mindful of the Seventh Circuit’s concern that when a complaint is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), if there is no opportunity to amend “an IFP applicant’s case
could be tossed out of court without giving the applicant any timely notice or opportunity to be
heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend,” which negatively impacts “fair
access to the courts.” Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 11-1917, 2013 WL 3599156, at *6
(7th Cir. July 16, 2013). Here, however, there is no reason to believe that the frivolous factual
allegations could be remedied through more specific pleading; they are inherently frivolous.
Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. See, e.g.
Denton, 504 U.S. at 34 (recognizing that where it appears that frivolous factual allegations could
be remedied through more specific pleadings, a court of appeals should consider whether the
district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice or without leave to
amend); Mathis v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir. 1998) (stating that Denton
recognized that dismissals under materially identical predecessor to § 1915(e)(2)(B) on grounds
of frivolousness could be with prejudice); Holland v. City of Gary, 503 F. App’x 476, 477–78
(7th Cir. 2013) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding through a
screening of the plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) that the plaintiff’s
fantastic and delusional allegations lacked any arguable basis in fact and that an amendment
would be futile).
4
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees [ECF No. 2], and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the
Complaint [ECF No. 1] as factually frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk
will enter judgment accordingly.
SO ORDERED on July 24, 2013.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
5
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?