Opinion
Civil Action 4:21-cv-01057
07-15-2021
WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. F.B.I., et al., Defendants.
Brann, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge
This civil action commenced on June 16, 2021, when the plaintiff lodged his pro se complaint, together with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1; see also Doc. 2.) In a contemporaneous order, we have granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and we now recommend that this action be dismissed sua sponte as legally and factually frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The plaintiff, William J. Scott, resides in Mount Carmel, Pennsylvania. He brings this action against four federal agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), the National Security Agency (“NSA”), and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), pursuant to the Anti-Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2340A.
In his pro se complaint, Scott alleges that FBI agents at an office in Scranton, Pennsylvania, have been operating a “non-invasive” “brain computer interface” that causes him to suffer constant and severe pain in his brain and body over the past four years. He compares this “brain computer interface” to mind-control devices purportedly used by the CIA in its “MK Ultra” program. See generally C.I.A. v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 161-62 (1985) (summarizing the background of the MKULTRA project). For reasons that are not clear from the complaint, he claims that the CIA, NSA, and DOJ are also involved in this activity. He appears to seek injunctive relief only-namely, an order directing the defendant agencies to remove him from this “brain computer interface.”
A plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides that a court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint is “frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To determine whether it is frivolous, a court must “assess an in forma pauperis complaint from an objective standpoint in order to determine whether the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or clearly baseless factual contention.” Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1086 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992)). This statutory provision further permits a court, in its sound discretion “to dismiss an in forma pauperis claim if it determines that the claim is of little or no weight, value, or importance, not worthy of serious consideration, or trivial.” Deutsch, 67 F.3d at 1089; see also Denton, 504 U.S. at 33-34 (“[F]rivolousness is a decision entrusted to the discretion of the court entertaining the in forma pauperis petition.”).
Here, the plaintiff claims that the FBI and other federal agencies have been subjecting him to torture remotely using a “brain control interface, ” in violation of the federal Anti-Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2340 et seq. But “18 U.S.C. §§ 2340 and 2340A . . . criminalize torture outside the United States; they do not provide civil redress for torture within the United States.” Renkel v. United States, 456 F.3d 640, 644-45 (6th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). Moreover, the Act provides for criminal penalties only; Congress has expressly declined to create a private cause of action. See 18 U.S.C. § 2340B (“Nothing in this chapter shall . . . be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any civil proceeding.”); see also Karim-Panahi v. 4000 Massachusetts Apartments, 302 F.Supp.3d 330, 338 (D.D.C. 2018), aff'd per curiam, No. 187054, 2018 WL 6167393 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2019); Brown v. Victor, Civil No. 3:08-CV-01178, 2008 WL 11450547, at *1 (M.D. Pa. July 1, 2008). See generally Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1, 13 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“Congress has created an extensive body of [criminal] law with respect to allegations of torture. But Congress has declined to create a civil tort cause of action that plaintiffs could employ.”). Thus, we find the plaintiff's claims lack any arguable basis in law.
Furthermore, we find the plaintiff's allegations of a “brain control interface, ” operated remotely by federal agents to inflict severe pain on him from a great distance, to be fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational, and wholly incredible, and thus factually frivolous. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33; cf. Donahue v. Dauphin Cty., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00890, 2020 WL 5200391, at *3 (M.D. Pa. May 14, 2020) (finding allegations that a state court judge used mind control techniques to manipulate a jury were frivolous), report & recommendation adopted by 2020 WL 5110628 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2020), appeal dismissed per curiam as frivolous, __ Fed. App'x __, 2021 WL 1118007 (3d Cir. Mar. 24, 2021).
Accordingly, we recommend that this action be dismissed as legally and factually frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and that the Clerk be directed to mark this case as closed.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated July 15, 2021. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.