Hall v. Trump et al
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PRO SE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. 1 ); (2) DISMISSING PRO SE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT (DOC. 1-2) AS FRIVOLOUS; (3) ORDERING THAT SERVICE OF PROCESS NOT ISSUE; AND (4) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURTS DOCKET. Signed by Judge Michael J. Newman on 1/6/21. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Case: 3:20-cv-00522-MJN Doc #: 2 Filed: 01/06/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DEBORA SUE HALL,
Case No. 3:20-cv-522
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
District Judge Michael J. Newman
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. 1); (2) DISMISSING PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
(DOC. 1-2) AS FRIVOLOUS; (3) ORDERING THAT SERVICE OF PROCESS NOT
ISSUE; AND (4) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT’S DOCKET
This civil case is before the Court This civil case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. 1. For good cause
shown, the undersigned GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. 1. Because Plaintiff is proceeding
IFP, the Court is required to screen his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine
whether it is “frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
Johnson v. City of Wakefield, 483 F. App’x 256, 260 (6th Cir. 2012); Brewer v. Cleveland Mun.
Sch. Dist., 84 F. App’x 570, 571 (6th Cir. 2003).
In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the federal government “has surveillance on
[her] and her family” that has been ongoing “for 20 years.” Doc. 1-2 at PageID 7. Plaintiff further
claims that the government puts chemicals in her home, water, and food; urinates and excretes in
her home; and has caused her a number of personal injuries to her -- including causing pressure in
her head, her leg to break, and her teeth to fall out. Id. These allegations can aptly be characterized
as “describing fantastic or delusional scenarios”; thus, satisfying the definition of frivolousness.
Case: 3:20-cv-00522-MJN Doc #: 2 Filed: 01/06/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 11
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327-28 (1989). Accordingly, the undersigned finds that:
(1) Plaintiff’s pro se complaint be DISMISSED as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915; (2) service
of process not issue; and (3) this action be TERMINATED on the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 6, 2021
s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
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?