Watkins v. FBI

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge John G. Heyburn II. For the reasons herein, the Court will, by separate order, dismiss Plaintiff's complaint as frivolous. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendant (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
GENE DeSHAWN M. WATKINS
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-681-JGH

FBI

DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Gene DeShawn M. Watkins, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (DN 1). This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the reasons set forth below, the action will
be dismissed.
I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff sues the “FBI.” In the portion of the complaint form asking him to state the
grounds for filing a case in federal court, Plaintiff states: “Agents was at 1915 Rockford LN
Apt. 202 and the female agents was raped by killers plus Montgomery Apts on Rockford . . .
have corrdores on the top of the roof so they come threw the doors of the Gene DeShawn M.
Watkins ceilin.”
The allegations contained in the statement-of-claim portion of the complaint are difficult
to follow. Plaintiff claims that FBI agents broke into his house and have “been havin sex for
days.” He alleges further that “agents have camers that see threw walls and clothes that[’]s a
violation of my 4th Amendment rights they havin sex w/ my gift to make women have orgasms
. . . .” He continues that “since agents r right above my kitchen breakin and entry and I am not
getting paid rent plus I am harboring fugitives cuz they over my kitchen breakin also the female

agents doing low level prostitution this has caused me mental distress . . . .” Plaintiff also
appears to allege that one of the agents threatened to throw him in the river and that agents have
put arsenic in his “bottle water.” Plaintiff further claims he is listening to “bugs in the federal
building and the bugs on TARC” and that his landlord found someone trying to put angel dust in
his house. Plaintiff makes no request for relief.1
II. ANALYSIS
This Court must review the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 604-05. Upon review, this Court must dismiss a case at any time if
the Court determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may,
therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory
or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. While a reviewing court must
liberally construe pro se pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam),
to avoid dismissal, a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Although this
Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the duty “does not require
us to conjure up unpled allegations.” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979).
1

In this complaint, Plaintiff makes allegations very similar to allegations made in other lawsuits
brought by him in state court and removed to this Court. See, e.g., Watkins v. Fed. Bureau of
Investigation, No. 3:14-CV-585-JGH (this Court found that complaint fit within the “essentially
fictitious” pleadings standards where Plaintiff alleged, among other things, federal cameras
which could see through clothes and walls were in his ceiling fan and F.B.I. agents made death
threats against him and were having sex with little girls in a sex slave ring).
2

The Court finds that this action must be dismissed as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of
the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Lawler v.
Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1199 (6th Cir. 1990); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th
Cir. 2010) (holding that a court need not accept as true factual allegations that are “‘fantastic or
delusional’” in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328)).
Those characterizations clearly apply to Plaintiff’s allegations.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will, by separate order, dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
as frivolous.
Date:

January 30, 2015

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant
4412.009

3