United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
WESLEY R. THOMAS, Plaintiff,
APPLE INC., et al, Defendants.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se plaintiff Wesley R. Thomas has filed a civil
Complaint asserting numerous claims against twenty-nine
defendants, including, but not limited to, the following:
Apple Inc.; Austin Peay State University-Board of Trustees;
the Clarksville Police Department; Christian County Sheriff
Department; Hopkinsville Police Department; the United States
Departments of Defense, Treasury, Homeland Security, and
Justice; T-Mobile Headquarters; Wendy's Company; Twitter;
and Facebook, Inc. Because Plaintiff proceeds in forma
pauperis, the Court must conduct an initial review of
the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For
the reasons set forth herein, the complaint will be dismissed
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for which
relief may be granted.
Initial Review Screening Standards
Court is statutorily required to conduct an initial review of
the complaint of a plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis and to dismiss it prior to service of process
if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). The screening procedure established by §
1915(e) applies to in forma pauperis complaints
filed by non-prisoners as well as to those filed by
prisoners. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601,
608 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones
v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
an in forma pauperis complaint will be permitted to
proceed if it contains "sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Hill v. Lappin, 630
F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Conversely, the action
must be dismissed as frivolous when it is "based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory" or when the
"factual contentions [on which it relies] are clearly
baseless." Anson v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 529
Fed.Appx. 558, 559 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). Thus, when a
complaint alleges facts that are "clearly baseless,
" "fanciful" or "delusional, " it
may be dismissed as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez.
504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citing Neitzke. 490 U.S.
at 327-28). A complaint that is legally frivolous
"ipso facto'" fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Hill, 630 F.3d at
470 (citing Neitzke. 490 U.S. at 328-29).
se complaints are to be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, and should
therefore be liberally construed." Williams v.
Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011). Pro
se litigants, however, are not exempt from the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Wells v. Brown. 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989);
see also Brown v. Matauszak, 415 Fed.Appx. 608, 613
(6th Cir. 2011) ("[A] court cannot create a claim which
[a plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading.")
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Cf.
Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) ("District
judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to
pro se litigants."); Young Bok Song v.
Gipson, 423 Fed.Appx. 506, 510 (6th Cir. 2011)
("[W]e decline to affirmatively require courts to ferret
out the strongest cause of action on behalf of pro
se litigants. Not only would that duty be overly
burdensome, it would transform the courts from neutral
arbiters of disputes into advocates for a particular party.
While courts are properly charged with protecting the rights
of all who come before it, that responsibility does not
encompass advising litigants as to what legal theories they
Review of the Complaint
alleges that, beginning in 2017, he was the subject of
illegal and intrusive surveillance by local and federal law
enforcement officers, the hijacking of his personal Twitter
account, and unlawful spying. He alleges, for instance, that
[a]round 2:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 14, 2017, the Plaintiff
and his elderly grandfather were subjectively exposed to an
IMMOBILIZATION/EUPHORIC GAS and LORAD (low frequency tactical
device) a/k/a sub-sonic weapon for several hours. D[ue] to
the age of the Plaintiff's elderly Grandfather and
Plaintiffs immobilized state, the Plaintiff did not make his
Grandfather aware of the events. This
pre-tactical-infiltration method was used to immobilize the
Plaintiff and/or other individuals in the residence, so an
individuals) could infiltrate the home placing illegal
surveillance device(s) and allowing other individuals to
search the property e.g. hay-barn, tractor barn, etc. Between
3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. individuals) infiltrated the
residence located at 1491 Major Lane, Hopkinsville, KY 42240.
The individuals) infiltrated the crawl-space and a
second-story window of the residence on the south-west side
of the residence leaving behind several surveillance devices
and evidence. [I]ndividual(s) ingressed the attic located on
the second-story, the Plaintiff made individuals) aware of
ingress. Upon making individuals) aware of entry,
individuals) egressed from the second-story to the stairs,
thru the dining-room, kitchen, den, and egressed the property
through the north-west patio door located on the first-floor.
(Compl. ¶ 68.)
Court finds these and the other allegations in the Complaint
to be clearly fanciful, baseless, and delusional. In
addition, the Complaint fails to contain specific facts
showing that any of the named defendants actually violated
plaintiff's constitutional or other rights. In short, the
factual allegations in the Complaint fail to "state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Hill,
630 F.3d at 470.
Complaint will be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to
state a claim for which relief may be granted. An ...