Gardner v. Central Intelligence Agency

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 4/3/2015. (c/m 4/3/2015 nd2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
LAEL GARDNER,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

*

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. GLR-15-728

*
MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff Lael Gardner filed the instant pro se Complaint. Gardner
alleges the Central Intelligence Agency (“C.I.A”) abducted her, committed her to a physiatrist
hospital against her will, and inserted an unknown substance into her body.1 (ECF No. 1). She
seeks $2,000,000,000.00 in damages and other miscellaneous relief. (Id.). Simultaneous with the
Complaint, Gardner filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2). The
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted.
In Neitzke v. Williams, the United States Supreme Court determined that a district court
may sua sponte dismiss the complaint of a pro se litigant when the complaint lacks “an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989). Additionally, under Denton v.
Hernandez, a court may dismiss as frivolous in forma pauperis complaints whose factual allegations
are fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational, or wholly incredible, but not those which are simply
unlikely. 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); see also Brock v. Angelone, 105 F.3d 952, 953-54 (4th
Cir.1997).

1

Gardner attached to her Complaint a copy of a March 16, 2012 Petition for
Emergency Evaluation completed by a Baltimore City Police Officer seeking an evaluation of
Gardner in response to threats made against the C.I.A and Police. (See Compl. Ex. 1). Also
attached to the Complaint is an Application for Involuntary Admission to Johns Hopkins Hospital,

Gardner’s factual statement, even construed liberally, does not support any claim under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States or Maryland. Moreover, the alleged factual basis
for Gardner’s claim is plainly irrational and replete with fantastic illusions. Thus, the case will be
summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous.2 A separate Order follows.
/s/
Date: April 3, 2015
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge

made by a Resident Physician. (Id.).
2
Gardner has filed two prior frivolous suits against the C.I.A. See Gardner v. Central
Intelligence Agency, Civil Action Nos. L-11-1126 (D. Md.) and CCB-13-3397 (D. Md.). Civil
Action No. CCB-13-3397 raised similar allegations to those made here.
2