Morales v. United States of America Government

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff's motion 2 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted for the limited purpose of this Memorandum and Order. As set forth in the Court's June 14, 2017 Memorandum and Order, the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Memorandum and Order for details. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this Order on the pro se Plaintiff and to close the case. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 6/14/2017. (Zdanys, Joanna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------x
DEMETRIUS RYAN MORALES,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
-against17-CV-1687 (LDH)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and NEW YORK
STATE CITY,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------x
LASHANN DEARCY HALL, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Demetrius Ryan Morales filed the above-captioned pro se action on March 27,
2017. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted for the limited purpose of this
Order, but, for the reasons set forth below, the action is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that his right to privacy has been violated for more than twenty years.
(Compl. at 4, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he “[does not] know who in the US government
placed a illegal satellite serveillance on me but its in orbit in space and is on me still presently”
[sic]. (Id.) He alleges that this surveillance took place in New York City and when he was
incarcerated in upstate New York. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff further alleges that “the public can see
my five senses they can see, smell, hear, taste and feel my life force energy.” (Id.) He claims
that “the government has recordance [sic] of everything I ever done all the way down to my
birth.” (Id.) He further claims that his personal information, including bank account number
and social security number, are “exposed to the public.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
and damages. (Id. at 6.)

1

DISCUSSION
As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the complaint is held to less stringent standards than
pleadings drafted by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and the Court is
obliged to construe the pleadings liberally and to interpret them as raising the strongest
arguments that they suggest, Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006). If a liberal
reading of the complaint “gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated,” the Court must
grant leave to amend the complaint. Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
An in forma pauperis action shall be dismissed where the court determines that the action
“(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii)
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). An action is frivolous when “either: (1) the factual contentions are
clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim
is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141
F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “[A] finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible[.]” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Plaintiff’s claims of constant satellite surveillance and exposure of his personal
information and “life force energy,” are unsupported by any specific factual allegations and “rise
to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Id. Accordingly, the Court finds that the
allegations are baseless and therefore dismisses them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose
of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is
directed to enter judgment and close this case.
SO ORDERED.

___/s/ LDH________________
LASHANN DEARCY HALL
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
June 14, 2017

3