United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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. §
Standard on Initial Review
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
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).
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).
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.
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
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
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).
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 ...