Davis v. Utah Department of Corrections

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND DISMISSAL ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Section 1983 complaint is DISMISSED under Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A because his claims are either frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 id. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 5/22/17. (dla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
STEVEN DALE DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION &
DISMISSAL ORDER

v.
UTAH DEP’T OF CORRS. et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-CV-269-DAK
District Judge Dale A. Kimball

Plaintiff, Steven Dale Davis, has filed with the Court a prisoner pro se civil rights
complaint. See 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2017). The Court approved Plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 id. § 1915.
The Complaint's allegations are leveled at Defendant Utah Department of Corrections
(UDOC). To summarize, Plaintiff accuses Defendant of gassing him as he entered prison in
2004. He further asserts that there is a “coup within the Department of Correction,” in which
“they are trying for full takeover, and using me as their tool to do so.” The Court has screened
Plaintiff's Complaint under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A and now dismisses it for being frivolous
and failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See id. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) &
1915A.
Section 1915 grants this Court the power to "'pierce the veil of the complaint's factual
allegations.'" Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). Although Plaintiff's allegations must be viewed in his favor, "a court may
dismiss a claim as factually frivolous . . . if the facts alleged are 'clearly baseless,' a category

encompassing allegations that are 'fanciful,' 'fantastic,' and 'delusional.'" Id. at 32-33 (citations
omitted). Accordingly, a determination of factual frivolousness is proper "when the facts alleged
rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
noticeable facts available to contradict them." Id. at 33.
Plaintiff's assertions here fit these definitions of factual frivolousness. The fantastic
claims in Plaintiff's complaint about being gassed and used as a pawn in a coup involving UDOC
have a delusional quality and are patently unbelievable. The claims here must therefore be
dismissed as factually frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2017).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's § 1983 complaint is DISMISSED under §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A because his claims are either frivolous or fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. See 28 id. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A. This case is CLOSED.
DATED this 22nd day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

2