Wallace v. United States of America

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE and granting 2 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 2/21/17. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-73-FDW-DCK

DON BRADLEY WALLACE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court for initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1), and a Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis (“IFP Motion”), (Doc. No. 2), on February 17, 2017.
Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the court must review the complaint
to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious
[or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In its
frivolity review, the court must determine whether the complaint raises an indisputably meritless
legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or
delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
In the pro se Complaint, Plaintiff has sued the United States as the sole Defendant,
purportedly seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff purports to bring a
claim for $500 million in damages against Defendant based on “personal injury in the matter of
multiple injuries in his lumbar spine including three bulging disc, one degenerative disc and a
1

disc bulge at the t-11 vertebrae.” (Doc. No. 1 at 1). In the 21-page Complaint, Plaintiff presents
numerous delusional and fantastical allegations, including the existence of “an ongoing presence
of and intimidation by Special operations, special forces, rangers, and central intelligence agency
personnel in the plaintiff and his families’ lives over the course of the past 15 years. Most of
these personnel were either legally out of the military or working for the C.I.A. in an alleged
contractual role.” (Id. at 9). Plaintiff also states in part of the Complaint that he is seeking legal
liability arising out of a different and wholly unrelated civil suit he previously filed in another
federal district court. See Wallace v. Enhanced Recovery Co., No. 7:13-cv-124 (E.D.N.C.). See
(Doc. No. 1 at 1).
In another part of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “[t]his claim arises out of negligent
psychiatric care shortly after the plaintiff moved” from Fayetteville, North Carolina, to Charlotte,
North Carolina, seeking mental health care at a Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Charlotte.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, in March 2013, he attended a routine psychiatric appointment
with Dr. Villanueva at a VA outpatient clinic at 8601 University E. Drive in Charlotte, North
Carolina. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Villanueva failed to adequately treat and assess
various unidentified psychiatric conditions. (Id.). Plaintiff also alleges that in August 2015, he
discovered from MRI scans that he had three bulging discs in his lower lumbar and one in his
thoracic spine. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that his “symptoms began while Homeless and hiking the
Appalachian trail. Plaintiff ended up on the Appalachian trail as a direct result of Dr.
Villanueva’s mal-productive, negligent, and possible criminal intake appointment on 14 March
2013.” (Id.). Plaintiff further alleges:
To sum this complaint up it is obvious that plaintiffs March 2013 psychiatric
intake visit and follow-up care was mal-productive, negligent, or possibly
2

criminal in nature. This negligent care left the plaintiff homeless on the
Appalachian trail where he performed the equivalent of a forced road march for
2186 miles straight. This road march obviously aggravated plaintiff’s mental
health and further depressed him. In addition, plaintiff incurred physical injury on
a previously unknown lower lumber condition existed [sic]. This physical injury
has cost plaintiff a whole lot of money, careers and destroyed his ability to work
and find a job.
(Id. at 12-13).
The Court will dismiss this action for various reasons. First, Plaintiff’s 21-page
Complaint, which is rambling and confusing, and alleges facts based on wholly unrelated events
and persons, simply does not comport with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
requires “a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8. Furthermore, the Complaint refers to wholly unrelated events and purported claims.
Finally, most of Plaintiff’s allegations can be fairly accurately described as fantastic and
delusional. For instance, Plaintiff alleges that he is the victim of “an ongoing and possible
criminal presence in the plaintiff’s life by ex-government and active government officials while
horrible things are happening to the plaintiff and his family”; that “various government officials
along with civilians have used the plaintiff’s mental health to ‘cover’ up possible crimes against
him the plaintiff will include attachments with this complaint;” and that “Delta Force has used
federal agencies to launch a cold war against plaintiff and his father.” (Id. at 11, 12, 17). In
another section of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “it is very possible that many individuals
in the intelligence community in and around Fayetteville have had some sort of horrible
influence on the plaintiff’s pretty much previous nonexistent health care at the department of
veteran’s affairs.” (Id. at 15). Therefore, the Court will sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.
The dismissal will be without prejudice to the extent that, if Plaintiff wishes to file a subsequent

3

action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act based on alleged negligent
medical care, his Complaint must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Doc. No. 2), is GRANTED for the
limited purpose of this Court’s initial review;
2.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety for the reasons stated herein.

3.

The Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: February 21, 2017

4