Rattler v. Department of Health and Human Services

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F I L E ﬂ FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OCT 1 6 2014 CLYDE LACY RATTLER’ ) Clerk, US. District & Bankruptcy ) Courts for the District of Columhir Plaintiff, ) ) v ) Civil Action No. 14-1656 (RCL) ) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ) HUMAN SERVICES, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff” s pro se complaint. The Court concludes that the complaint is frivolous and that it must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(1)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(1). According to plaintiff, he applied for supplemental security income (“SS1”) benefits in 1983, Compl. 1] 2, and since has “made numerious [sic] attempt[s] to secure . . . SS1 beneﬁts an[d] other Federal disability beneﬁts . . . to no avail[,]” id. 1 ] 4. Further, in denying his application for beneﬁts, defendants allegedly have committed treason, id. 1 ] 6, engaged in a conspiracy, id. 1 ] 10, breached an express or implied contract, id. 1 [ 15, committed fraud, id. 1 ] 20, committed theft, id. 1 ] 28, and have attempted to murder him, id. 1 ] 37, among other wrongs. Plaintiff therefore has demanded “a court order . . . to comple [sic] the Department of Health and Human services to award [him] Ten Hundred Zillion . . . dollars each month.” 1d. 1] 5; see id. 1 ] 9. In addition, plaintiff asks that the Court “award [him] supernatural powers[,] the right . . . to do as [he] wishs [sic] and a court order For Plaintifﬂ’s] immediate release from prison.” Id. 1 ] 9; see id. 1H] 13, 18, 23, 27, 36, 40. The court is mindful that a complaint ﬁled by a pro se litigant is held to a less stringent standard than that applied to a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nevertheless, the court must dismiss a case “at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is ﬁ'ivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). A district judge has “not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); see Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (DC. Cir. 1984) (ﬁnding that complaint may be dismissed as ﬁivolous for lack of “an arguable basis in law and fact”). The instant complaint falls squarely within this category: its factual allegations are clearly baseless, and it utterly lacks any arguable basis in law. The instant complaint bears a marked resemblance to that ﬁled in a prior case.1 What begins with an allegation of the denial of an application for SSI beneﬁts in 1983 “disintegrates 1 The complaint also resembles other complaints ﬁled in — and summarily dismissed by — this court. See, e.g., Rattler v. Dep ’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-1300, 2013 WL 4607415 (D.D.C. Aug. 28, 2013) (denying petition for a “writ of mandamus to compel “the human race to go naked on the sidewalk for eternity unable to move no part of their body and award petitioner super natural power the right for him to do as he wishes”); Rattler v. Dep ’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-0786, 2013 WL 2390842 (D.D.C. May 21, 2013) (denying mandamus and into a variety of unsubstantiated claims” of treason, conspiracy, breach of contract, theft, fraud, and violation of equal protection rights, Rattler v. Dep ’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 12— 1427, 2012 WL 3757508 , at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 29, 2012), as plaintiff has alleged here, see generally Compl. 111] 6-43. The instant complaint, too, “presents the type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal under § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous,” Rattler, 2012 WL 3757508 , at *1, and, accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint with prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. CW RO CE C. LAMBERTH United States District Judge DATE: N/mﬂg dismissing case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Rattler v. Dep ’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-0327, 2013 WL 1089810 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 2013) (denying mandamus and dismissing case as frivolous); Rattler v. Dep ’t ofHealth & Human Servs., No. 13-0094, 2013 WL 257365 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2013) (denying petition for a “writ of mandamus directing ‘the human race to [sic] naked on the sidewalk unable to move their body for eternity’”); Rattler v. Dep ’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 12-1427, 2012 WL 3757508 , at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 29, 2012) (dismissing as frivolous mandamus petition demanding “a court order in the nature of a[ ] writ of mandamus compelling the human race to go naked on the sidewalk for eternity unable to move their body”); Rattler v. Sec ’y of Health & Human Servs., 736 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (dismissing as frivolous a complaint demanding an award of an “unlimited sum of money[,], supernatural powers[,] and the right to be awarded beneﬁts . . . as many times [as he] wish[es]”), afd, 405 F. App’x 504 (DC. Cir. 2010); see also Rattler v. Sec ’y ofHealth & Human Servs., No. 11-729, 2011 WL 3841604 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2011) (concluding that, because “[t]he allegations in plaintiff’ s complaint are virtually identical to the allegations that were made by plaintiff in Rattler v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, No. 10-1484 (D.D.C. ﬁled Aug. 31, 2010), . . . res judicata prevents plaintiff from relitigating the same claim in the instant action”).