Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brison v. Mulls

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

March 25, 2019

LATONYA RENEE BRISON, Plaintiff,
v.
JERMAL MULLS, etal., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          CATHERINE D. PERRY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the motion of pro se plaintiff Latonya Renee Brison for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. (Docket No. 2). Having reviewed the motion, the Court has determined that plaintiff lacks sufficient funds to pay the filing fee and will grant her leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for frivolity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         Legal Standard on Initial Review

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of misconduct." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679. The court must "accept as true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016). See also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8* Cir. 2016) (stating that court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required to "accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation").

         When reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A "liberal construction" means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should construe the plaintiffs complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8* Cir. 2015). However, even pro se complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8* Cir. 2004) (stating that federal courts are not required to "assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint"). In addition, affording a pro se complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

         Background

         On October 18, 2018, plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint with the Court. (Docket No. 1). The complaint named Central Intelligence Agent Jermal Mulls as the sole defendant. At that time, she also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) and a motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 3).

         On January 14, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Docket No. 5). The amended complaint named Central Intelligence Agent Jermal Mulls, CIA Informant Danisha Berries, and CIA Headquarters as defendants. The Court notes that the filing of an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint. See In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) ("It is well-established that an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect"). As such, the Court will look at the amended complaint, rather than the original complaint, for purposes of § 1915 review.

         The Amended Complaint

         The substance of plaintiffs amended complaint is that she has been subjected to nonconsensual human experimentation and torture. (Docket No. 5 at 5). She claims that this has "destroyed" her life and damaged her mind. (Docket No. 5 at 6). She blames the government for this experimentation.

         Plaintiff alleges that on June 17, 2017, her body was "cyberhacked" by implantation of a nanochip, wireless chip, and a piezoelectric sensor into her cortex. (Docket No. 5 at 7). She states this was done invisibly "through the television, radio, and power." She states that her nervous system has been manipulated and that microwave irradiation is causing her body pain. She also alleges that satellite surveillance is watching her every movement through the chips in her body. Plaintiff concludes that the "CIA and others are conducting non-consensual experimentation" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

         The amended complaint provides a laundry list of alleged abuses being perpetrated, including covert psychology, stem cell research, cloning, sex trafficking, and sleep deprivation. Plaintiff attributes these abuses to the Geneva Convention, CIA illegal operations, and a number of codenamed programs, such as "Operation Mockingbird," "Operation Valkyrie," "Operation Paperclip," and the "Phoenix Program." (Docket No. 5 at 7-8).

         Plaintiff states that her amended complaint implicates the United States Constitution and a number of federal statutes, including the Patriot Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242, and UCMJ § 809. (Docket No. 5 at 3). She does not request any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.