Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02696/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02696-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DAVID GRANT, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, etc.; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-2696 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Michael David Grant, formerly a prisoner of the state of California, filed a petition for

writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). He also applied to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action at any time if the court determines

that the allegation of poverty is untrue, the action is frivolous or malicious, the action fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Section 1915(e)(2) allows judges the

unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss as

frivolous those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. See Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). Examples are claims describing fantastic or delusional

scenarios. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed, however. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990). 

Case 3:07-cv-02696-MHP Document 4 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In his petition, Grant alleges that he had some dental work done while he was a

prisoner in a state prison in Chino in 1998. He further alleges that, without his knowledge or

consent, the dentist implanted an illegal microchip GPS device into his teeth instead of dental

fillings. Grant further alleges that the secret microchip has allowed his movements to be

tracked. He has been tracked and followed 24 hours a day/7 days a week by satellites,

military helicopters, drone spy planes, and secret government agents over the years as he

goes about his life in the Victorville area. The petition is clearly delusional and therefore

will be dismissed as frivolous.

The court notes that Grant is listed as a plaintiff/petitioner in 29 actions filed in the

Central District of California, one of which may have been a duplicate of the claims as he

presents here. The order denying Grant leave to proceed as a pauper in Grant v. Victor

Valley Towing, C. D. Cal. No. EDCV 06-00164 stated that the complaint was "legally and/or

factually patently frivolous" and described it as alleging that "government officials and

private entities acted in concert to surreptitiously implant tracking/filming/listening devices

in plaintiff's teeth, leg, and vehicles." The filing of a duplicative action would be a separate

reason for dismissal, but the court need not obtain a copy of the complaint in the Central

District case to decide whether the claims are the same because the petition is being

dismissed based on its delusional nature.

The petition is clearly delusional and therefore is dismissed as frivolous. The in forma

pauperis application is DENIED. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2007 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02696-MHP Document 4 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 2