FIL§Q

 ' '\
uNITED sTATEs DISTRICT coURT ¢,,,k_ u s D_Z _¢ 1811
FoR THE DISTRICT oF COLUMBIA Coum¢,',,',,°';r,rs»cr& san»<rup¢c,

trict of Columb;@
Michae1 K. Ciacci, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) ¢ c c
v. ) C1v1l Actlon No.  
) _
United States, et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed informal pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e), the Court is
required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous.
28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i).

Plaintiff is a resident of Los Angeles, Califomia. He sues former United States
Congressman Neil A. Abercrombie, who is the current Govemor of Hawaii, United States
Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa, representative of Hawaii’s First Congressional District,
Hawaii State Senator Les Ihara, Jr., a telecommunications company, and a cable company for
"willfully, recklessly and negligently conspir[ing] to inflict real injuries and otherwise assault[]
plaintiff" in February 2009. Compl. at 2. Plaintiff also alleges, inter alia, that defendants
"willfully, recklessly, and negligently searched and seized [his] personal property in clam [sic]
for political purposes." Id. Plaintiff does not state exactly what acts were committed, but he
alleges that "[a]s a result[,] [he] was unconscious for seven hours, incurred serious concussion

and laceration to face, was prevented from transacting his business, suffered great pain of body

and mind, and incurred expenses for medical attention and hospitalization in the sum of over one
thousand dollars." Id. He seeks $ l.6 billion in damages. Ia'. at 3. In addition to the alleged
common law torts, plaintiff purports to sue under the Constitution and "the United [sic] and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
'l`errorism Act of 2001," id. at l, commonly known as the Patriot Act (Pub. L. 107-56, Oct. 26,
200l,l15 Stat. 272).

Plaintiff’s far-fetched accusations against the varied defendants present the type of
fantastic or delusional scenarios or "fancif`ul factual allegation[s]" warranting dismissal under
§ l9l5(e)(2) on the ground of frivolousness. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 3 l9, 325 (1989);
accord Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330~31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). A separate Order of dismissal

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

lum ,zi/r__

United/States District Judge
Dare; March / ? , 2011

