United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
Jerry Santee, Plaintiff, Pro se, St. Gabriel, LA.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pro se plaintiff, an inmate confined at Hunt Correctional Center, St. Gabriel, Louisiana, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden Seth Smith. Plaintiff alleged that he has been subjected to an electrical device which reads his thoughts and dreams, feels what he feels, and prison officials broadcast the names of his relatives throughout the prison to torment him. Plaintiff asserted that such equipment should only be used by federal agencies and law enforcement officers. Plaintiff further alleged that he was denied due process at a disciplinary board hearing in violation of his constitutional rights.
I. Applicable Law and Analysis
A. Frivolous Standard
An in forma pauperis suit is properly dismissed as frivolous if the claim lacks an arguable basis either in fact or in law. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 24 (5th Cir. 1995). A court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33-34, 112 S.Ct. at 1733. Pleaded facts which are merely improbable or strange, however, are not frivolous for 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) purposes. Id.; Ancar v. SARA Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992). Dismissal § 1915(d) may be made at any time before or after service of process and before or after an answer is filed. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986).
B. Factually Frivolous
Plaintiff alleged that for approximately two years prison officials have terrorized him and disrupted his sleep by broadcasting the names of his relatives throughout the prison. Plaintiff alleged that he was implanted with a device that allows prison officials to know what he thinks, dreams and says, no matter where he is located.
Plaintiff's allegations regarding an implant and the broadcasting of his thoughts and dreams are clearly fanciful, fantastic, and delusional and should be dismissed as frivolous.
C. Due Process
Plaintiff alleged that he was denied due process at a disciplinary board hearing. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was issued a disciplinary report for possession of contraband, a Rule 1 violation. Plaintiff alleged that when he appeared before the disciplinary board hearing, he was represented by inmate counsel substitute who moved to dismiss the rule violation. Plaintiff alleged that Maj. Penion, the disciplinary board chairman, failed to rule on the motion to dismiss and deferred the matter for an investigation.
Plaintiff alleged that following an investigation he was once again brought before the disciplinary board which was chaired by Col. Brock. Plaintiff alleged that Col. Brock modified the disciplinary report by changing the charge to a Rule 30C violation. Plaintiff alleged that the matter was once again deferred for investigation on the Rule 30C disciplinary violation. Plaintiff alleged that his motion to dismiss was not ruled on.
Plaintiff alleged that following an investigation into the Rule 30C disciplinary violation, he was once again brought before the disciplinary board which was chaired by Maj. Robertson. Plaintiff alleged that he was found guilty of the disciplinary infraction.
Plaintiff alleged that he appealed the decision of the disciplinary board and the matter was remanded by Dy. Warden T. Delaney. Plaintiff alleged that on remand Maj. Grimes read the plaintiff's alleged confession into the record. Plaintiff alleged that he was once ...