Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01113/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TANYA GRACE MCDANIEL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-01113-TLN-AC 

ORDER AND FINDINGS & 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-

302(c)(21). Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is 

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in 

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 

action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

Case 2:15-cv-01113-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are “clearly baseless.” 

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Thus, the term “frivolous,” when applied to a complaint, “embraces not 

only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Id. at 325. 

 Normally, the court “must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the 

complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007)). However, “a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when 

the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are 

judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 

(1992). Therefore, the in forma pauperis statute “accords judges . . . the unusual power to pierce 

the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions 

are clearly baseless.” Id. Among those “are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, 

claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Id. at 328. This portion of the 

statute “is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources 

upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of 

bringing suit and because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 11.” Id. at 327. 

 The court does not exercise this “unusual power” lightly or often. Indeed, the court takes 

very seriously the following admonition of the Supreme Court: 

An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, 

simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely. 

Some improbable allegations might properly be disposed of on 

summary judgment, but to dismiss them as frivolous without any 

factual development is to disregard the age-old insight that many 

allegations might be “strange, but true; for truth is always strange, 

Stranger than fiction.” Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza 

101 (T. Steffan, E. Steffan & W. Pratt eds. 1977). 

Denton, 504 U.S. at 33 (emphases added). Nevertheless, when it is appropriate to do so—that is, 

when the allegations go well beyond “unlikely” or “improbable” and enter the realm of 

“irrational,” “wholly incredible” or “delusional” —the court carries out the intent of the law, and 

dismisses claims meeting the Neitzke standard. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33 (“[A] finding of factual 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-01113-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly 

incredible”). 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that she is the victim of a vast conspiracy between a plethora 

of celebrities and politicians, who have formed a group called “the Illuminati.” ECF No. 1 at 2–5. 

Plaintiff alleges that this group has engaged in a systemic campaign to humiliate, mock, and 

discredit her for reasons she herself does not understand. Id. at 4–5. This campaign has, at times, 

taken the form of coded insults conveyed through witchcraft, news broadcasts, and music lyrics 

by popular artists including Beyonce and Taylor Swift. Id. at 7, 8, 13. Plaintiff alleges these 

insults have caused her tremendous emotional distress. Id. at 15. She also alleges that she is 

related to a number of individuals involved in the conspiracy, including President Barack Obama, 

Halle Berry, and Aretha Franklin. Id. at 14. The court finds that despite the emotional distress 

plaintiff alleges, distress that the court does not in any way discredit or demean, the allegations 

regarding the defendants’ conduct are so incredible that they need not be accepted as true. The 

court further finds that amendment would be futile. The undersigned will therefore recommend 

that these claims be dismissed with prejudice. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 

 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendants be 

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-01113-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 06/08/15 Page 3 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: June 5, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-01113-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 06/08/15 Page 4 of 4